Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamsharan @ Shyamcharan vs The Additional Commissioner on 26 February, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY-2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1085 OF 2026
SHYAMCHARAN @ SHYAM CHARAN
VS.
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER & OTHERS.
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 1086 OF 2026
SHYAMCHARAN @ SHYAM CHARAN
VS.
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER & OTHERS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Pradeep Singh-Advocate for the petitioners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(O R D E R) Since both these petitions are filed involving common questions and are between the same parties, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience facts are taken from MP No. 1085/2026.
2. The challenge in the present case is made to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Annexure P/1 dated 27.01.2026, whereby the Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 27.02.2025.
3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the matter relates to mutation of the agricultural land and mutation was carried out without hearing the petitioner and by impleading only the vendor and purchaser of the sale deed. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-02-2026 14:31:11 2 contended that the petitioner is co-owner in the land and without hearing the present petitioner, the mutation could not have been ordered and this important aspect has been overlooked by the SDO as well as by the Additional Commissioner.
4. Upon hearing the aforesaid assertions, it is seen that there has been a sale deed by respondent No. 4 in favour of respondent No. 5 and the application for mutation was filed in pursuance to the sale deed. The mutation was permitted by the Revenue Authorities and now the petitioner is before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that the vendor of the sale deed had no real title to sale the land because she had married an uncle of the present petitioner and she had then remarried and therefore her right, title and interest in the property had come to an end and she did not have any right to sell the land.
5. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner only raises the question of title of the vendor of sale deed to sale the land. It is settled in law that the Revenue Authorities cannot go into the complicated questions of title of the parties and such registered non-testamentary documents are required to be adjudicated by the Civil Court only, to decide the questions that whether the sale deed is valid or otherwise.
6. A Full Bench of this Court in W.A. 667/2024 (Vijay Singh Yadav Vs. Smt. Krishna Yadav) has held in paragraph 75 (6) that the Revenue Authorities cannot decide the validity of a non- testamentary registered title document and if there is a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-02-2026 14:31:11 3 dispute then unless there is a stay by the Civil Court, then non- testamentary registered title documents have to be given effect. The Full Bench 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-02-2026 14:31:11 4 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 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."
7. Therefore, in the present case, if the petitioner intends to challenge the title of the vendor to the sale deed, therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, that was beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities and the Revenue Authorities have rightly carried out mutation in favour of the purchaser of sale deed. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Civil Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-02-2026 14:31:11 58. While granting the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, it is observed that none of the findings of the Revenue authorities shall come in way of the petitioner. He may also pray temporary injunction before the Civil Court. The petitions are disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-02-2026 14:31:11