A NAME IN THE RECORDS, NOT A TITLE IN LAW: MUTATION, WILLS, AND THE LIMITS OF REVENUE JURISDICTION

INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India, in Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Another, Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 22439 of 2024), reported as 2025 INSC 1485, delivered an important judgment on 19 December 2025. The decision was authored by Justice Manoj Misra, speaking for the Bench.
The Judgment clarifies the long-standing confusion surrounding mutation entries based on a will, the limited scope of enquiry by revenue authorities under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the extent of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It reasserts that mutation is a fiscal act and cannot be conflated with adjudication of title.

BRIEF FACTS
Roda alias Rodilal, the recorded tenure holder of several agricultural survey numbers in Madhya Pradesh, died on 06 November 2019. The Appellant, Tarachandra, claimed rights over the land as a legatee under a registered will dated 01 May 2017 and applied for mutation under Section 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
An objection was raised by the first Respondent, Bhawarlal, asserting possession over one of the survey numbers on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell allegedly executed by the Deceased. After issuing notices, publishing objections and recording evidence including that of attesting witnesses, the Tehsildar allowed the mutation in favour of the Appellant, subject to the outcome of a pending civil suit.
The first Respondent’s appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner were dismissed. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside the Orders of the Revenue Authorities and directed mutation in favour of the legal heirs of the Deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or in their absence, in favour of the State. Aggrieved by this interference, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF LAW
The Supreme Court was required to consider:
1) Whether mutation of land records can be granted on the basis of a will under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the 2018 Mutation Rules.
2) Whether revenue authorities have the jurisdiction to enquire into the validity of a will while deciding mutation proceedings.
3) The nature of mutation proceedings and whether such entries confer title or substantive rights.
4) Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 by interfering with concurrent orders of revenue authorities.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court undertook a statutory analysis of Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 holding that the Code does not restrict acquisition of rights in land to inter vivos transactions alone. Devolution of interest by testamentary succession is equally recognised. The Court noted that the 2018 Mutation Rules expressly acknowledge a will as a valid mode of acquisition, thereby dispelling any assumption that mutation cannot be sought on its basis.
The Court firmly rejected the High Court’s reliance on an earlier decision that treated mutation based on a will as impermissible, particularly in light of the Full Bench ruling in Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine MP 977, which clarified that an application for mutation founded on a will cannot be rejected at the threshold. The revenue authority’s role, the Court emphasised, is administrative and summary, not adjudicatory.
A significant doctrinal reaffirmation in the Judgment is that mutation does not confer title. Revenue entries serve fiscal purposes alone and are intended to facilitate land revenue administration. Any serious dispute regarding the validity of a will, testamentary capacity or competing claims of title must be resolved by a competent civil court, not by revenue officials.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court noted that no legal heir of the deceased had disputed the will, which was a registered document. The objection was raised only by a third-party claiming rights under an unregistered agreement to sell, without any decree of specific performance. In such circumstances, the Tehsildar’s decision to allow mutation, subject to civil adjudication, was found to be legally sound.
The Court found that the High Court failed to examine whether the revenue authorities had committed any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity and instead interfered mechanically under Article 227. Such supervisory powers, the Court reiterated, are not meant to correct every perceived error but are confined to addressing grave derelictions of jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION
The decision in Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal draws a clear and necessary line between revenue administration and civil adjudication of title. By restoring mutation based on a registered will, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that revenue records reflect possession and fiscal liability, not ownership in law.
The Judgment offers authoritative clarity to revenue officials, litigants and High Courts alike: mutation proceedings are not the forum to test the validity of wills or resolve competing claims of title. At the same time, it preserves the primacy of civil courts in adjudicating substantive rights, ensuring that fiscal convenience does not eclipse legal correctness.

SUSHILA RAM VARMA
Chief Legal Consultant & Advocate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips. To learn about various aspects of the law, watch our latest video, titled –“Child Custody Laws India 2025 | Mother vs Father Rights Explained | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma”