Facts of case:

In the instant case, petitioner filed an application under Section 109/110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code to mutate his name in the revenue records, the total area of 4.53 acres situated in village Dudha, on the basis of the alleged will executed by one Smt. Ananti Bai, widow of Bhagwandeen Bargahi – his maternal grandmother. The alleged will was executed on 20.05.1998. It is required to be noted that though, initially it was the case on behalf of the petitioner that Smt. Ananti Bai died on 20.05.1998, however, subsequently, it was stated that there was a typographical error and Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. It is to be noted that the application for mutation was filed on 9.8.2011, i.e., even before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai.

 

Lower Court’s reasoning and order

The Nayab Tehsildar by order dated 30.09.2011 directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the aforesaid lands solely on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. The legal heirs and daughters of Smt. Ananti Bai preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who allowed said appeal and set aside the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner, challenging the order passed by the SDO. The Additional Commissioner allowed the said appeal and quashed and set aside the order passed by the SDO and consequently, the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar came to be restored. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner observing that once the will is disputed and even otherwise the petitioner who is claiming rights/title on the basis of the will executed by the deceased Ananti Bai, the remedy available to the petitioner would be to file a suit and crystalise his rights and only thereafter the necessary consequence shall follow.

 

Submission of the Petitioner:

Petitioner has submitted that an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai.

 

Supreme Court’s reasoning and Judgement:

 

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. High Court has not committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

 

Coram: Justice M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose

Case Name: Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Counsel: Adv Rajesh Inamdar for petitioner, Adv G.V. Chandrasekar for respondent

Picture Source : Twitter