Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Rambai @ Phula Bai D/O Late Heeralal ... vs Smt Prem on 11 March, 2026
1 MP-1345-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1345 of 2026
SMT RAMBAI @ PHULA BAI D/O LATE HEERALAL YADAV
Versus
SMT PREM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sumanta Kumar Bhattacharya - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the revenue authorities in the matter of mutation of land.
2. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that some imposter had sold the land of the share of the present petitioner also to a third person and therefore, the mutation in favour of the said third person was challenged by the petitioner, but her challenge has been rejected by the superior revenue authorities.
3. In the present case, the petitioner raises a purely question of title because she states that there is a sale deed executed in her name favouring a third person, but that sale deed is null and void because it has been executed by some imposter.
4. Aforesaid contention cannot be adjudicated by the Tahsildar, because it deals with title of the parties and as held by the Full Bench of this Court in W.A. No.667 of 2024 (Anand Choudhary vs. State of M.P. & Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 3/13/2026 6:10:57 PM 2 MP-1345-2026 others), wherein the Full Bench has held in para 75 therein 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 3/13/2026 6:10:57 PM 3 MP-1345-2026 Tehsildar to decide such dispute and assume powers of Civil Court by going into the authenticity of will or of any non- testamentary registered title document and that outer time limit has to be read only to determine whether a dispute exists in the matter and granting opportunity to parties to approach the Civil Court. If such approach to Civil Court is not made or despite approach no injunction is granted by Civil Court, then mutation will be carried out on basis of succession by ignoring disputed testamentary document and in case of non-testamentary registered title documents, by giving effect to such document. Once a dispute in the matter of competence of testator, validity of the will (whether registered or not) or into a non-testamentary registered title document or dispute as to title is raised before Civil Court and injunction is granted, then the only course open for the Tehsildar would be not to proceed further and to report the matter to the Collector under Section 110(7) of MPLRC.
7) In case no dispute is raised by any legal heirs of the testator or by any other person in the matter of competence of testator to execute the will and authenticity of the will, then it would be open for the Tehsilder to carry out the mutation in such undisputed cases. However, even in those cases subsequent Civil Suit will not be barred.
8) In case where issue of Government having interest in the land crops up in course of mutation, then the Tehsildar may decide that question in terms of section 111 readwith Section 257 (a) MPLRC by exercising jurisdiction which is wider than administrative one and may take evidence, but in those cases also, no enquiry as to validity of will or of any registered title document can take place before the Tehsildar."
5. The revenue authorities are therefore under obligation to give effect to registered non-testamentary documents and hence in the considered opinion of this Court unless the petitioner files a civil suit challenging the sale deed and the said sale deed is set aside in civil suit, the revenue authorities are under obligation to give effect to registered title document and were bound to carry out mutation.
6. Therefore, interference in the present petition is declined. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 3/13/2026 6:10:57 PM 4 MP-1345-2026 petitioner is set at liberty to file a civil suit to challenge the sale deed, if so advised and seek injunction therein.
7. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 3/13/2026 6:10:57 PM