Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22087
1 WP-13149-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 24 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 13149 of 2018
VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Jain - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
Challenge is made to an order dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khirikya, District Harda whereby an application filed by the petitioners seeking mutation has been rejected and a direction has been issued to continue the name of Collector in the revenue records.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed an application before the revenue authorities seeking mutation of their names on the revenue records as Savarkars of Mandir Shriram located on a part of Khasra No.111/1 having an area of 6.819 hectares. It is contended that the Mandir was the property of their ancestors late Laxmi Narayan and Gyaras Ram and their names were mutated in the revenue records as Savarkars of Mandir. Late Laxmi Narayan executed a Will in favour of the petitioners bequeathing the rights of property of Mandir and son of Gyaras Ram executed a consent deed in favour of the petitioners. On the basis of the Will and the consent deed, the petitioners acquired the status of Savarkars of Mandir and on the said strength of the documents, they applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. They have also carried out some Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:16:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22087 2 WP-13149-2018 reconstruction of Mandir. The respondent No.3 entertained the application and issued notices to public at large inviting objections. No objection was received from the public. Therefore, the respondent No.3 called for the report from the Patwari, who has given a report that the temple is a private property of the ancestors of the petitioners and it is open for some of the villagers of the village. The respondent No.3 recorded the evidence of attesting witnesses of the Will and held that the Will was duly executed and proved in accordance with law. The respondent No.3 has held that rest land of the Mandir is being used for agriculture purpose. He has gone through the list of trust properties in which Mandir of the petitioners with the land has not been shown. The temple is not registered as a public trust anywhere. And being satisfied with the title of the petitioner and the fact of non-registration of Mandir as public trust, the respondent No.3 ordered for mutation of the names of petitioners, but has also held that the name of Collector shall continue along with the petitioners.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that a part of the order by which the observation is made that the name of the Collector to continue in the revenue records along with petitioner is totally without jurisdiction. Once it is held that the trust is a private trust and exclusive property of the petitioners, there was no question to continue the name of the Collector in the revenue records along with the petitioners. They have asked for deletion of the name of the Collector from the revenue records as the petitioner will be handicapped in dealing with the property of the Mandir and they are required to seek consent of the Collector for every act to be commenced by them. Therefore, this petition is filed.
4. This petition was filed in the year 2018 and no notices have been issued till date. Against the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 02.09.2009, the petitioners are having a remedy of filing an appeal against the said Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:16:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22087 3 WP-13149-2018 order. Without availing the said remedy, he had directly approached this Court by filing a writ petition.
5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is also seen that Sub Divisional Officer has considered the application of the petitioners and adjudicated upon the Will, recorded the evidence and has approved the Will which is beyond his jurisdiction. The question that whether the revenue authorities are having any jurisdiction to enter the name in the revenue records based upon the Will was considered by this Full bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online MP 977, wherein it is held us 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:16:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22087 4 WP-13149-2018 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 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 read with 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."
6. In view of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court, the revenue authorities were having no jurisdiction to deal with the aspect of taking evidence to test the genuineness of the Will. It is within the domain of the civil courts. The revenue authorities are only having a right to mutate the name in the revenue record based upon the Will, when the will is not objected. However, genuineness of the Will cannot be tested by the revenue authorities.
7. The record indicates that the Sub Divisional Officer has allowed the names of the petitioners to be entered into the revenue records with an observation that the name of the Collector will continue in the revenue records. The public trust as stated by the petitioners is not a registered public trust. Until and unless, it is shown to be a registered public trust, the Collector will be the managing trustee Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:16:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22087 5 WP-13149-2018 of the temple. There is no valid document that it is a private trust by the petitioners that can be shown. In absence of any such document, the observation made by the Sub Divisional Officer is just and proper. The said observation is made to protect the land attached to the temple and for the management of the temple. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are serving the temple and using the temple property, but just to protect the property of the temple and the amount which is generated from the temple property, be used for the maintenance of the temple, the name of the Collector was rightly continued in the revenue records. Thus, no relief can be extended to the petition.
8. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:16:44