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. 7077 of 2025 MAHESH MALI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Dharmendra Patel - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Ajay Ojha Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

ORDER By way of this petition challenge is made to order passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar whereby the appeal of the private respondents has been allowed and the name of the private respondents has been ordered to be restored in the revenue record.

2. The private respondents had got their names entered in the revenue record on the strength of a registered sale deed which is placed on record as Annexure P/3 dated 05.02.2021. The present petitioners have claimed on long possession over the land and has even stated that their names have been entered in the revenue record as person in possession of the land and therefore, some rights on the land in question. It is further asserted by the petitioners that since the land was allotted to the vendor by means of a patta by the State Government, therefore, vendor could not have sold the land without permission of the competent authority under Section 165 (7-b) of MPLRC.

3. It is seen that the private respondents have a registered document of title in their favour which is a registered sale deed executed by a persons who was given Patta by the State Government. It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3499/2022 (Anand Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others) vide order dated 14.02.2025 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 2018 would create a dispute relating to any right which is recorded in the record of rights and arising during either mutation or correction of entry would be such a dispute.

5) In case any dispute as mentioned in para (4) above is raised between private parties, then the Tehsildar would not have any competence to decide the dispute and it would be for the parties to approach the civil court to get the dispute adjudicated, in terms of detailed discussion contained in para-74 above. Such matters will either be disposed or kept pending and reported to the Collector in terms of Section 110(7) MPLRC by the Tehsildar, in the manner discussed in detail in this order. 6) The decision in disputed cases as contemplated under Section 110 (4) M.P.L.R.C. does not give any authority to the Tehsildar to decide such dispute and assume powe