Revenue Authorities Can Mutate Property Records Based on a Will, Holds Supreme Court

Mutation of land records is one of the most frequent sources of litigation in India, often arising at the intersection of succession disputes, testamentary claims, and revenue administration. A recurring legal question has been whether revenue authorities can modify property records based on a Will, or whether such modification must await a declaration by a civil court.

In Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr. (2025 INSC 1485), the Supreme Court of India has authoritatively clarified this issue. The Court held that revenue authorities are competent to carry out mutation based on a Will, subject to the outcome of civil proceedings, reaffirming the settled principle that mutation entries are fiscal in nature and do not confer title. 

Factual Background of the Case

The dispute arose from land situated in Mouza Bhopali, Madhya Pradesh, which stood recorded in the name of Roda alias Rodilal, the original tenure holder. Upon his death in November 2019, the appellant, Tarachandra, claimed rights over the land based on a registered Will dated 1 May 2017.

Relying on this Will, the appellant applied for mutation under Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. During the mutation proceedings, the respondent objected, claiming possession of one of the survey numbers based on an unregistered agreement to sell allegedly executed by the deceased.

Despite the objection, the Tehsildar allowed mutation after issuing public notices and recording statements, while expressly making the entry subject to the outcome of any civil suit. Appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner failed.

However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the mutation and directed that the land be mutated in favour of legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, relying on earlier High Court precedent that discouraged mutation based on a Will.

Aggrieved, the legatee approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was essentially called upon to decide:

1. Whether the mutation of land records can be carried out on the basis of a Will, or whether such mutation requires prior adjudication by a civil court.
2. Whether revenue authorities exceed their jurisdiction by recognising a Will during mutation proceedings.
3. What is the effect of rival claims based on possession or unregistered agreements on mutation proceedings?

Statutory Framework Governing Mutation

Sections 109 and 110, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959

Section 109 requires a person acquiring any right in land to report such acquisition to the revenue authorities. Section 110 lays down the procedure for mutation, including the issuance of notice, hearing of objections, and passing of orders.

Crucially, the Code does not restrict the modes of acquisition of rights, which may include sale, gift, inheritance, or testamentary succession.

Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Mutation Rules), 2018

The 2018 Rules expressly recognise acquisition of rights through a Will as a valid basis for mutation. This legislative development played a central role in the Supreme Court’s reasoning.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

1. Mutation Proceedings Are Administrative, Not Adjudicatory

The Court reiterated the settled position that mutation proceedings are summary and administrative in nature. Revenue officers do not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial powers to determine title. Their role is confined to maintaining updated revenue records for fiscal purposes.

The Court observed that mutation entries do not create, extinguish, or confirm ownership rights, nor do they bar civil suits.

2. Will Is a Recognised Mode of Acquisition of Rights

Rejecting the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court held that there is nothing in the 1959 Code that prohibits the acquisition of rights through a Will. On the contrary, the 2018 Rules explicitly acknowledge testamentary succession.

Therefore, an application for mutation cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because it is founded on a Will.

3. Revenue Authorities Can Consider a Will, But Not Decide Its Validity

A critical distinction was drawn between considering a Will for mutation purposes and adjudicating its validity.

The Court clarified that:

• Revenue authorities may act on a Will where there is no serious dispute raised by legal heirs.
• If questions arise regarding the genuineness, execution, or mental capacity of the testator, such disputes must be resolved by a civil court.
• Pending such adjudication, mutation can be made subject to the outcome of civil proceedings.

4. Rival Claims Based on Possession or Unregistered Agreements Do Not Bar Mutation

In the present case, the respondent’s objection was based on an unregistered agreement to sell and alleged possession. The Court held that such claims:

• Do not override a registered Will at the mutation stage.
• Do not confer title in the absence of a decree of specific performance.
• Must be adjudicated independently by a civil court.

Thus, the Tehsildar committed no jurisdictional error in allowing mutation in favour of the legatee while safeguarding civil remedies.

5. High Court Exceeded Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the High Court for interfering with concurrent findings of revenue authorities without identifying any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity.

Article 227, the Court emphasised, does not permit re-appreciation of facts or substitution of administrative discretion unless there is patent illegality.

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

The Court conclusively held that:

• Mutation based on a Will is legally permissible.
• Revenue authorities are competent to effect such a mutation.
• Mutation entries remain subject to adjudication by civil courts.
• The High Court erred in mechanically applying outdated precedent without considering statutory changes and binding Supreme Court decisions.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the revenue authorities were restored.

Relationship Between Mutation and Title: Reaffirmed Principles

This judgment reinforces long-standing principles:

1. Mutation is for fiscal purposes only.
2. Title flows from substantive law, not revenue entries.
3. Civil courts remain the ultimate arbiters of ownership disputes.
4. Revenue administration must not be paralysed by speculative civil claims.

Harmony With Prior Supreme Court Decisions on Mutation

The ruling aligns with earlier decisions such as Jitendra Singh v. State of MP (2021), where the Court held that mutation based on a Will is permissible but does not settle title.

By reaffirming these principles, the Supreme Court has brought clarity and uniformity to land revenue practice across jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal marks a significant reaffirmation of the limited but essential role played by revenue authorities in land administration. By holding that a mutation can be effected based on a Will, the Court has ensured that administrative efficiency is not sacrificed at the altar of avoidable technicalities.

At the same time, the judgment carefully preserves the supremacy of civil courts in adjudicating testamentary disputes, thereby maintaining the delicate balance between fiscal governance and substantive property rights.

In an era where land disputes clog civil courts and administrative processes alike, this ruling serves as a much-needed reminder that mutation is not about ownership, but orderly governance—and that the law must facilitate, not frustrate, that objective.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams