Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Midiya vs Radheshyam on 25 February, 2026
1 MP-6223-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6223 of 2019
SMT. MIDIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
RADHESHYAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Abhayraj Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to
4.
ORDER
By way of this Petition, challenge is made to the Order dated 17.05.2019 Annexure P-5 passed by the Additional Commissioner whereby the Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal against the Order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the S.D.O, and has confirmed the order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Tahsildar.
2. The matter relates to mutation on the land in question. The Respondent No.1 to 4 had purchased the land from respondent No.5 Ramavtar and thereafter, the disputes as to mutation ensued. There is a registered document in against the Petitioners, and they have been raising the ground that they are also legal representatives of deceased Chenu and the deceased Chenu had erroneously partitioned the land in three portions during his lifetime somewhere in the year 2010 and in terms of the aforesaid Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 2/26/2026 11:19:01 AM 2 MP-6223-2019 erroneous partition, respondent No.5 Ramavtar had erroneously got 1/3 share in the land and he sold the land of his erroneously granted larger share to the respondents No. 1 to 4.
3. The matter is pending mutation since the year 2013 and all disputes in relation to the validity of registered sale deed and the validity of partition are being raised before the Revenue Courts.
4. A Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3499/2022 (Anand Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided on 14.02.2025 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 2/26/2026 11:19:01 AM 3 MP-6223-2019 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 2/26/2026 11:19:01 AM 4 MP-6223-2019 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 2/26/2026 11:19:01 AM 5 MP-6223-2019 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. In view of para 75 (6), it has been held by the Full Bench that the Tahsildar is bound to give effect to a non-testamentary registered title document and if any party disputes that registered non-testamentary title document, then the party has to approach the Civil Court.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the Petition is dismissed. The petitioners, Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 2/26/2026 11:19:01 AM 6 MP-6223-2019 as they raise dispute of title as to share of vendor and the validity of sale deed as well as validity of previous partition, are set at liberty to approach the Civil Court. They may approach the Civil Court within a period of 30 days from today. Only for a period of 30 days from today, the interim Order passed on 25.11.2019 shall continue to operate.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE veni Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 2/26/2026 11:19:01 AM