Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It was further argued that the State of Madhya Pradesh has framed Mutation Rules of 2018 known as Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Akhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 (for short hereinafter referred to as Mutation Rules 2018). It was vehemently argued that as per Rule 3 of the Mutation Rules, it has been provided that right or interest acquired in land under Section 109(1) shall be made in different forms i.e. Form-I to Form-V. It is argued that Form-I relates to acquisition of Bhumiswami right or interest and that the said Form-I relates to 10 modes of acquisition of Bhumiswami rights out of which at Sr. No.2, the entry made is 'by Will' and required document is self attested copy. Thus, it is argued that once the Government has framed Rules to carry out the provision of Sections 109 and 110 of MPLRC and has recognized Will as a valid document of mutation then the view taken in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra) by the Supreme Court is per incuriam in as much as the said judgment does not take into consideration the Mutation Rules 2018. Though, the said Rules were in the statute book and in any event the said matter related to in mutation application of the year 2011 while the Mutation Rules have come into force from the year 2018. The learned counsel for the respondents have also vehemently relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in the case of Jagjeet Singh Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala 2012 SCC Online P&H 13153, wherein the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that mutation in revenue records is only for a fiscal purpose and that no title is transferred on the basis of mutation entry. The proceedings are summary in nature and in the exercise of administrative functions and therefore, such proceedings do not create or extinguish any right or title in the land and the right or title in the property is to be decided by the Civil Court. The Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court was dealing with the case where mutation was sought on the basis of Will and the Division Bench further held that mutation can be effected on the basis of Will even during pendency of civil suit because mutation proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance during the pendency of civil suit before the Civil Court and Revenue Officers are duty bound in terms of the statute to enter mutation in exercise of their administrative functions.

29. There seems to be substance in the argument of the petitioners that if the mutation entry was only for a fiscal purpose, then it would not have given rise to so many litigations before the Revenue Courts. There is actually no competition amongst people and citizens to pay land revenue and be disciplined citizens, but actually to gain the rights to exchange, sale, mortgage, lease, seek possession, etc. of the land on the basis of mutation entry of bhumiswami rights.

31. A private person can only get Bhumiswami Rights in terms of Section 158 and he shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under M.P.L.R.C. Therefore, Bhumiswami rights are the best rights a private person can get on agricultural lands in the State of Madhya Pradesh and upon being mutated as Bhumiswami of the land, a person will enjoy all the rights as narrated above under the M.P.L.R.C., it will be subject to certain restrictions as laid down in various provisions of M.P.L.R.C., as narrated above. Therefore, this Court discards the argument that mutation entries are purely for fiscal purpose only because in the State of Madhya Pradesh, as per the scheme of M.P.L.R.C., mutation entry brings alongwith it various other rights and interests in the land including most importantly, the right to transfer the land.

68. In the Judgment in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra) the aforesaid order has been taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 to 8 in the following manner :-

"6. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.