IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 15 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 7108 of 2025 GANGASAGAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ajay Ojha - G.A. for the State.

ORDER By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders of Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3 passed by the Tahsildar, SDO and Commissioner respectively. By the order of Annexure P-1, the Tahsildar had permitted mutation in favour of the private respondents. By the order of Annexure P-2, the appeal against the said order had been rejected by the SDO and by the order of Annexure P-3, the Commissioner has refused to entertain the appeal on the grounds that since the petitioner has already instituted a Civil Suit before the Civil Court, therefore, the appeal before him cannot be decided in view of Section 10 of CPC.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter relates to Will executed by deceased mother of petitioner, namely, Smt. Somari Devi, who is stated to have executed two rival Wills, one in favour of the petitioner and another in favour of the Respondent No.5. The Tahsildar held that the Will in favour of the Respondent No.5 seems to be genuine, because it is a registered Will and ordered mutation of the Respondent No.5 on the strength of the Will.

3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the Civil Suit has already been filed by the petitioner in the matter of Will, to challenge and contest the Will in favour of the Respondent No.5. It is contended that the Civil Court may decide all the issues regarding validity of Will, but till that time the Respondent No.5 may alienate the land and unless the orders of the Tahsildar and SDO are stayed or set aside, the Respondent No. 5 may alienate the lands on the basis of mutation in his favour.

4. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3499 of

2022 (Anand Chaudhary vs. State of M.P. and others) vide order dated 14.02.2025 that the revenue Courts and authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the issues of validity of Will in case the Will is contested and disputed by the other party and it is open for the parties to approach the Civil Court and the Revenue Courts and authorities would be bound by the judgment of the Civil Court in the matter. The Full Bench has held as under:-

75. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that Tehsildar cannot reject the application for mutation at threshold on the ground that it is based upon will. However, in view of detailed discussion made by us above, it would be appropriate to summarize our conclusions serially as under:-

1) The Tehsildar while dealing with cases of mutation under sections 109 and 110 MPLRC between private parties, does not perform judicial or quasi-judicial functions, but only performs administrative functions and therefore, he is not authorized to take any evidence for the purpose of deciding applications for mutation.

2) The Tehsildar can entertain application for mutation on the basis of will. However, it would be obligatory upon him to enquire about the legal heirs of the deceased and notice them in view of provisions of section 110(4) MPLRC.

3) Sections 109 and 110 have to be read alongwith Section 111 M.P.L.R.C. and a bare reading of Section 111 of M.P.L.R.C. leads to conclusion that where-ever rights of private parties are involved, then it will only be for the Civil Court to adjudicate the disputed cases. The jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers in the matters of mutation in Revenue records, is merely administrative.

4) A dispute as to validity of will, competence of testator to execute will or existence of two rival wills of testator, or a dispute as to validity of any other non-testamentary registered title document as enumerated in Form-1 of Mutation Rules of 201