On December 19, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment titled as Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025), wherein the Apex Court clarified the scope of mutation proceedings in revenue records under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that mutation based on a registered will can proceed in cases where no serious dispute is raised by legal heirs regarding the validity of will.
The dispute revolved around a land owned by Late Shri Roda alias Rodilal, who passed away on November 6, 2019. Shri Rodilal had executed a registered will on May 1, 2017, bequeathing his lands (including several survey numbers totaling 5.580 hectares in Mouza Bhopali) to the appellant, Shri Tarachandra. Shri Tarachandra applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records under Section 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Tehsildar, after due inquiry, ordered the mutation in the name of the appellant and made it subject to the outcome of any pending civil suit. The first respondent, Shri Bhawarlal filed an appeal before Sub-Divisional Officer and objected to the said mutation by stating that he had claimed possession over one plot (Survey No. 195) that he received through an unregistered sale agreement. Shri Bhawarlal also alleged adverse possession by him over the said plot. Despite this, the Tehsildar’s order was upheld by the Ld. Sub-Divisional Officer and the Ld. Additional Commissioner. Shri Bhawarlal then approached the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 227, which while relying on its earlier decision that prohibited mutation based on wills set aside the order passed by the Ld. Additional Commissioner.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, comprising of Hon’ble Justices Shri Manoj Misra and Shri Sanjay Karol, framed some core questions on which they delivered a detailed judgement. Such questions are as follows:
- Whether revenue authorities can mutate records based on a registered will.
- Whether there are limits to the Hon’ble High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
- What is the nature of mutation proceedings.
The appeal was allowed and the Hon’ble High Court’s order was set aside. The Apex Court upheld the decision of the Additional Commissioner and restored Tarachandra’s mutation were upheld, subject to civil court’s decision.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Sections 109 and 110 of the 1959 Code do not restrict modes of acquiring rights (including through wills). The Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018, explicitly recognizes wills as a valid basis for mutation. Pertinently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on a recent Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), which ruled that applications for mutation based on wills cannot be rejected outrightly as in cases with no disputes from legal heirs or serious challenges to the will’s validity, revenue officers should proceed with mutation to safeguard revenue interests.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court criticized the Hon’ble High Court’s interference and held that the Hon’ble High Court should have only interfered where there was a jurisdictional error in the revenue orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that mutation entries do not confer title—they are merely for fiscal purposes—and any title disputes (like Shri Bhawarlal’s claim under an unregistered agreement) must be resolved in a civil court. The Hon’ble Court built the operative part of its judgment upon its earlier ruling in Jitendra Singh v. State of MP (2021), wherein it was clarified that complex will disputes are contested in civil courts and undisputed registered wills can form the basis for mutation.
This ruling imparts clarity and procedural efficiency to land record mutation proceedings in India by obviating unwarranted delays and permitting administrative mutations on the basis of a duly registered will, where the will remains unchallenged by the legal heirs. This ruling also safeguards the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate disputes relating to title and the validity of such testamentary instruments.