Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Dwivedi (Died) Through Lrs (A) ... vs Naval Kishore on 8 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8131
1 WP-8649-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8649 of 2025
ARVIND DWIVEDI (DIED) THROUGH LRS (A) SMT. ASHA AND
OTHERS
Versus
NAVAL KISHORE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Harish Dixit Senior Advocate with Shri Parth Dixit- Advocate for
the respondent No.1.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may
kindly be pleased to allow the present petition and it is further
prayed that the orders Annexure P-1 to P-3 may kindly be set
aside in the interest of justice."
2. Since, the controversy in hand lies in a narrow campus, therefore, it
is suffice to mention here that one Bitti Bai was the owner of the land in
dispute. The respondent No.1 made an application for mutation of his name
on the basis of Will executed by Bitti Bai whereas petitioners also claimed
their title on the basis of another Will executed by Bitti Bai in their favour.
The petitioners are the grandsons of Bitti Bai. The Application filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8131
2 WP-8649-2025
respondent No.1 for mutation of his name on the basis of Will was allowed
by Tahsildar and appeal filed by petitioners was rejected by SDO.
3. Being aggrieved by order dated 18/07/2014 passed by SDO
Bhander, District Datia in Appeal No.30/Appeal/12-2013, petitioners
preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner,
Gwalior Division, Gwalior by order dated 09/10/2019 passed in case
No.67/2013-14/Appeal.
4. Challenging the orders passed by the revenue Courts, it is submitted
by counsel for petitioners that since, Will on which respondent No.1 has
relied upon, is a disputed document, therefore, the revenue Courts have no
jurisdiction to decide the correctness and genuineness of Will and respondent
No.1 should have approached the civil Court for declaration of his title on the
basis of Will.
5. Counsel for petitioners has also relied upon the judgment passed by
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.
and Others reported in 2025 (1) MPLJ 646.
6. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondents that in fact the
petitioners were also claiming their title on the basis of rival Will purportedly
executed by Bitti Bai, therefore, it is clear that Will executed in favour of
respondent No.1 cannot be said to be a disputed one. However, it is fairly
conceded by counsel for respondents that petitioners are the grandsons of
Bitti Bai.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8131
3 WP-8649-2025
(supra) has held as under:-
"75. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question
referred to us in the negative and hold that Tehsildar cannot reject
the application for mutation at threshold on the ground that it is
based upon will. However, in view of detailed discussion made by
us above, it would be appropriate to summarize our conclusions
serially as under:-
1) The Tehsildar while dealing with cases of mutation
under sections 109 and 110 MPLRC between private
parties, does not perform judicial or quasi-judicial
functions, but only performs administrative functions
and therefore, he is not authorized to take any evidence
for the purpose of deciding applications for mutation.
2) The Tehsildar can entertain application for mutation
on the basis of will. However, it would be obligatory
upon him to enquire about the legal heirs of the
deceased and notice them in view of provisions of
section 110(4) MPLRC.
3) Sections 109 and 110 have to be read alongwith
Section 111 M.P.L.R.C. and a bare reading of Section
111 of M.P.L.R.C. leads to conclusion that where-ever
rights of private parties are involved, then it will only be
for the Civil Court to adjudicate the disputed cases. The
jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers in the matters of
mutation in Revenue records, is merely administrative.
4) A dispute as to validity of will, competence of
testator to execute will or existence of two rival wills of
testator, or a dispute as to validity of any other non-
testamentary registered title document as enumerated in
Form-1 of Mutation Rules of 2018 would create a
dispute relating to any right which is recorded in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8131
4 WP-8649-2025
record of rights and arising during either mutation or
correction of entry would be such a dispute.
5) In case any dispute as mentioned in para (4) above is
raised between private parties, then the Tehsildar would
not have any competence to decide the dispute and it
would be for the parties to approach the civil court to
get the dispute adjudicated, in terms of detailed
discussion contained in para-74 above. Such matters
will either be disposed or kept pending and reported to
the Collector in terms of Section 110(7) MPLRC by the
Tehsildar, in the manner discussed in detail in this
order.
6) The decision in disputed cases as contemplated under
Section 110 (4) M.P.L.R.C. does not give any authority
to the Tehsildar to decide such dispute and assume
powers of Civil Court by going into the authenticity of
will or of any non-testamentary registered title
document and that outer time limit has to be read only
to determine whether a dispute exists in the matter and
granting opportunity to parties to approach the Civil
Court. If such approach to Civil Court is not made or
despite approach no injunction is granted by Civil
Court, then mutation will be carried out on basis of
succession by ignoring disputed testamentary document
and in case of non-testamentary registered
title documents, by giving effect to such document.
Once a dispute in the matter of competence of testator,
validity of the will (whether registered or not) or into a
non-testamentary registered title document or dispute as
to title is raised before Civil Court and injunction is
granted, then the only course open for the Tehsildar
would be not to proceed further and to report the matter
to the Collector under Section 110(7) of MPLRC.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8131
5 WP-8649-2025
7) In case no dispute is raised by any legal heirs of the
testator or by any other person in the matter of
competence of testator to execute the will and
authenticity of the will, then it would be open for the
Tehsilder to carry out the mutation in such undisputed
cases. However, even in those cases subsequent Civil
Suit will not be barred.
8) In case where issue of Government having interest in
the land crops up in course of mutation, then the
Tehsildar may decide that question in terms of section
111 readwith Section 257 (a) MPLRC by exercising
jurisdiction which is wider than administrative one and
may take evidence, but in those cases also, no enquiry
as to validity of will or of any registered title document
can take place before the Tehsildar."
9. It is clear from the paragraph 75 (4 and 5) that when there are two
rival Wills of testator and any dispute is raised by the private parties, then the
Tahsildar would not have any competence to decide the dispute and it would
be for the parties to approach the civil court to get the dispute adjudicated.
10. Petitioners may not be treated as class one heirs of Bitti Bai, but
the father of petitioners is certainly class one heir of Bitti Bai. Since, there
are two rival Wills which are being relied upon by the parties and none of
parties are ready to accept the Will executed in favour of another, therefore,
this Court is of considered opinion that unless and until, it is decided by the
civil Court as to whether Will executed by Bitti Bai in favour of respondent
No.1 is valid or executed in favour of petitioners is valid or none of Wills are
valid, the names of any of the contesting party on the basis of their
respective Will cannot be mutated in the revenue record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8131
6 WP-8649-2025
11. As a consequence thereof, the order dated 08/08/2012 passed by
Tahsildar, Bhander District Datia in Case No.18/A-6/2011-12, order dated
18/07/2014 passed by SDO Bhander, District Datia in Case
No.30/Appeal/2012-13 and order dated 09/10/2019 passed by Additional
Commissioner, Gwalior Division Gwalior in Case No.67/2013-14/Appeal
are hereby quashed.
12. The Tahsildar Bhander, District Datia is directed to mutate the
names of all the class one heirs of Bitti Bai. The contesting party shall have
right to approach the civil Court for declaration of their title on the basis of
Will purportedly executed in their favour. It is made clear that the mutation
of names of all the class one heirs shall be subject to final outcome of civil
suit, if instituted.
13. With aforesaid observation, the petition is allowed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
