Mutation of Revenue Records Based on Will

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra in the case of Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal (2025) set aside the High Court order and restored mutation in favour of a legatee under a registered will, while clarifying that such entry would remain subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings on title. 

What was the Background of Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal (2025) Case? 

• The case concerned agricultural land in Mouza Bhopali, Madhya Pradesh, which stood recorded in the name of Roda alias Rodilal. 
• After Rodilal's death in November 2019, the appellant Tarachandra sought mutation of the land records on the strength of a registered will executed by Rodilal in May 2017. 
• The Tehsildar, Manasa allowed the mutation after issuing public notice, considering objections and recording statements of witnesses, including attesting witnesses to the will. 
• The mutation order was expressly made subject to the rights of parties being finally decided in a pending civil suit. 
• Bhawarlal, the first respondent, who claimed possession over one of the survey numbers on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell and adverse possession, challenged the mutation. 
• His appeals before the Sub Divisional Officer and the Commissioner were dismissed. 
• The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside the revenue authorities' orders. 
• Relying on its earlier decision in Ranjit v. Smt. Nandita Singh, the High Court directed that the land be mutated in the names of the legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 
• The High Court further directed that if no legal heirs were available, the land should be mutated in favour of the State Government, subject to the civil suit. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to examine whether the revenue authorities' orders suffered from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 227. 
• The bench stated that an application for mutation based on a will cannot be thrown out at the threshold merely because it is testamentary in nature. 
• The Court relied on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which clarified that while a Tehsildar can entertain mutation applications based on a will, disputes regarding the validity or genuineness of the will must be left to a competent civil court. 
• The Court emphasized that mutation entries do not confer any right, title or interest in property and are meant only for fiscal and revenue purposes. 
• The Court stated that where there is no serious dispute raised by any natural legal heir of the tenure holder, and in absence of any legal bar, mutation based on a will should not be denied as it would defeat the interest of Revenue. 
• The Court noted that none of the natural legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder had questioned the will, and the only objection came from a third party claiming under an unregistered agreement to sell, with no decree of specific performance in his favour. 
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's impugned judgment and restored the mutation in favour of the appellant. 
• The Court clarified that the mutation entry would remain subject to adjudication by a competent civil or revenue court, if any dispute regarding title is raised and decided in accordance with law. 

What is Mutation of Revenue Records? 

About: 

• Mutation is the process of recording changes in ownership or possession of land in revenue records maintained by state authorities. 
• It is primarily a fiscal and administrative measure to ensure proper collection of land revenue and maintenance of updated land records. 
• Mutation does not confer any right, title, or interest in the property to any person. 
• The purpose of mutation is to identify the person liable to pay land revenue to the government and for maintaining accurate revenue records. 
• Revenue authorities like Tehsildars or Sub Divisional Officers are empowered to carry out mutation proceedings under respective state land revenue codes. 

Mutation Based on Will: 

• Rights in immovable property may be acquired through various modes such as sale, gift, mortgage, lease (inter vivos transfers) or through devolution by will or inheritance upon death of the title holder. 
• When a mutation application is based on a will, the revenue authority must consider it on merits and cannot reject it merely because it is testamentary in nature. 
• However, if serious disputes arise regarding the validity, genuineness, or execution of the will, such disputes must be referred to and decided by a competent civil court. 
• The revenue authority's role is limited to administrative recording and does not extend to finally adjudicating complex questions of title or validity of testamentary documents. 

Distinction Between Mutation and Title: 

• Mutation is purely for fiscal purposes and does not create, transfer, or extinguish any legal rights in property. 
• A person whose name appears in mutation records is not automatically considered the legal owner or title holder of the property. 
• Questions of title, ownership, and beneficial interest in property can only be conclusively determined by civil courts through proper legal proceedings. 
• A mutation entry remains subject to any civil or revenue court proceedings where title or rights in the property are disputed and adjudicated in accordance with law. 
• This ensures that while revenue administration proceeds smoothly based on available documents, legal rights are protected and can be established through appropriate judicial forums.