Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Vimla Koshal(Died )(Deleted As Per … vs Deepak Kumar Jain on 3 August, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58580
1 WP-18037-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 3 rd OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18037 of 2013
SMT. VIMLA KOSHAL(DIED ) THROUGH LR.s OTHERS
Versus
DEEPAK KUMAR JAIN
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Gulatee - Senior Advocate along with
Shri Shubhank Basnet - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rajesh Choudhary - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 09.06.1997
(Annexure P-6) and 03.02.2003 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Nazul Officer,
Seoni, as well as the order dated 15.09.2003 passed by the Collector, Seoni
(Annexure P-8), order dated 18.8.2006 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur (Annexure P-7) and finally, the
order dated 19.06.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure P-9)
regarding rejection of application filed by the petitioners and their
predecessor-in-title under Section 110 of MP Land Revenue Code for
mutation on death of Sunnibai Kaushal. The following reliefs have been
claimed in the petition:
I. That the impugned order dated 19.6.2013 may kindly be set
aside and the application for mutation filed by the petitioners maySignature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
13:32:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58580
2 WP-18037-2013
kindly be allowed.
II. To grant any other relief’s which this Hon’ble Court deems fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
III. To award cost of this petition.”
2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present petition is as under:
(1) It is uncontroverted fact between the parties that Birdhichand
Kaushal was title holder of Plot Number 64/2, 64/3 in Block No.31 and Plot
No.20/2 and Plot No.8 in Block No.52 Nazul Ward – Budhwari in
Seoni. Birdhichand Kaushal executed registered sale deed in favor of his
wife Sunnibai Kaushal on 02.04.1968. Accordingly, the land in question
was recorded in name of Sunnibai Kaushal in the revenue records. Deepak
Kumar Kaushal applied for mutation on the basis of registered adoption deed
dated 23.01.1979. The Nazul Officer, Seoni, in Revenue Case Number 67/A-
6/95-96, v i d e order dated 09.06.1997 (Annexure P-6), allowed the
application and directed mutation in favour of Deepak Kumar Kaushal along
with Sunnibai in the revenue records in respect of Plot Numbers 64/2 and
64/3 in block No.31 and and Plot Number 20/2 and Plot No.8 total area
1110 square feet in Block No.52 in Seoni.
(2) It is also not controverted that Sunnibai Kaushal, wife of
Birdhichand Kaushal, expired on 21/8/2000. The petitioners and their
predecessor-in-interest claiming to be legal heirs of Mahendra Kaushal, son
of Birdhichand Kaushal, applied for mutation by filing application under
Section 110 of MP LR Code stating that Mahendra Kaushal had expired on
24.8.2000. During pendency of mutation proceedings before the Nazul
Officer, Seoni in Case Number 2A-6/2000/2001, Deepak
Kaushal/respondent No.1 filed a preliminary objection challenging
maintainability of the proceedings. The petitioners filed objection/reply to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
13:32:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58580
3 WP-18037-2013
the preliminary objection. The Nazul Officer, Seoni allowed the preliminary
objection and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners vide order
dated 3/2/2003 (Annexure P-5).
(3) The order of Nazul Officer was assailed in appeal under Section 44 of
M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Collector, Seoni. The Collector, Seoni,
vide order dated 15/9/2003 (Annexure P-8) passed in Appeal Case Number
27-A-6/02-03 rejected the appeal and affirmed the order of Nazul Officer
dated 03.02.2003. The order of Collector was challenged in appeal under
Section 44(2) of M.P. Land Revenue Code. The Additional Commissioner,
v i d e order dated 18.8.2006, passed in Case Number 85/A-6/2003-04,
(Annexure P-7), rejected the appeal. The order of Additional Commissioner
was challenged before the Board of Revenue by filing revision under Section
50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The Board of Revenue, vide
impugned order dated 19/6/2013 passed in Case Number 1510-PBR/2007,
rejected the revision and affirmed the orders of subordinate Revenue
Authorities.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
legal heirs of Mahendra Kumar Kaushal, son of original owner, Birdhichand
Kaushal. Therefore, they are entitled for mutation on the basis of succession
from deceased, Sunni Bai (second wife of Birdhichand Kaushal) under
Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Nazul Officer, without
properly notifying and inquiring the application for mutation filed by Deepak
Kaushal, proceeded to grant mutation merely on the basis of an adoption
deed. The order dated 06.09.1997 of the Nazul Officer was a nullity. It is
further submitted that the revenue authorities – Nazul Officer, Collector and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
13:32:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58580
4 WP-18037-2013
Additional Commissioner, as well as the Board of Revenue committed an
illegality in dismissing the application for mutation filed by the present
petitioners merely on the basis of illegal mutation order passed in favor of
Deepak Kaushal. Learned Senior counsel referring Section 110 of the M. P.
Land Revenue Code, 1959 and Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-
Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018, submits that adoption is not
recognised as a mode of mutation in the earlier Rules as well as the present
Rules.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further referring to the
judgment of the Full Bench in Anand Choudhary v. State of MP and Others ,
(Writ Petition No.3499 of 2022 and other connected matters decided on
14.02.2025) submits that when the dispute in question of title appeared
before the Nazul Officer, he should have kept the mutation proceedings in
abeyance and referred the parties to the Civil Court for deciding the title.
Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality. Learned Senior
counsel lastly submits that mutation in favour of Deeapk vide order dated
09.06.1997 was ab initio void. Therefore, it cannot be used to deny mutation
in favour of the present petitioners, who are admittedly legal heirs of Sunni
Bai.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Nazul
officer in compliance with the prescribed procedure had issued public
notice and invited objections. When no objection was received, the Nazul
officer conducted inquiry and on the basis of undisputed adoption deed and
the statement of Sunni Bai, ordered mutation in favor of Deepak Kaushal
vide order dated 9/6/1997. The predecessor in interest of the petitioners,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
13:32:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58580
5 WP-18037-2013
Mahendra Kumar Kaushal, never assailed this mutation during his lifetime.
Deepak Kaushal, being adopted son of Sunni Bai, is entitled for mutation by
way of survivorship. When these aspects of the matter were brought to the
notice of the Nazul officer during consideration of application filed by the
petitioners, the Nazul officer dismissed the application filed by the
petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that
respondent had raised objection about the claim of the petitioners in his reply
to the application under Section 110 of the MP Land Revenue Code stating
that there was civil dispute between Mahendra Kaushal and his father
Birdhichand Kaushal. The dispute was settled and Mahendra Kaushal was
given share in the property. Thereafter, Birdhichand Kaushal transferred the
land in dispute to Sunni Bai by executing registered sale deed in furtherance
of the settlement in civil dispute. Therefore, Mahendra Kumar Kaushal had
no right, title and interest in the land in dispute and this fact was duly
considered in the order passed by the Collector. The impugned orders are
valid and legal and therefore, no case is made out for interference. The
petition is meritless.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
7. In the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 802, it has been held:
6. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue
records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of
the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the
petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the
application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of
Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed
only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be
that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, 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 disputeSignature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
13:32:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:585806 WP-18037-2013
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.
7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh
(D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the
effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records
neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on
title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar
view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.
8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 , it is observed
and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person
whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have
only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the
basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is
concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been
expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India , (2004) 12 SCC
58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin , (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K , (2008) 9
SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra , (2015) 16 SCC
689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha , (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo
Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co. , (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu
Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh , (2019) 13 SCC 70.
9. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be
said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the
revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein 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. (emphasis added)
8. The Full Bench of this Court in Anand Choudhary (supra) has laid
down as follows:
The matter relates to mutation on agricultural land on the basis of Will. A Single Bench of
this Court vide order dated 07/10/2023 has referred the matter for consideration by a
Larger Bench of this Court on the following question:–
“As to whether, Tehsildar can reject the application of mutation, at threshold, on
the ground that it is based upon Will taking aid from the decisions previously
rendered without considering the provisions of Rules viz. Madhya Pradesh
BhuRajsav Sanhita (Bhu- Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 framed by
the State Government vis-a-vis mutation.”
74. 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 noticeSignature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
13:32:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:585807 WP-18037-2013
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 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.
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 read with
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. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
provides for presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption as
under-
“Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced
before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving
and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has
been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved.”
10. If the execution of adoption deed is specifically denied or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
13:32:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58580
8 WP-18037-2013
challenged, it must be proved as required under Section 68 of the Evidence
Act. Apparently, the petitioners did not assail the validity of registered
adoption deed executed in favor of Deepak Kaushal before the Court of
competent Civil Jurisdiction or even before the revenue authority at the time
of mutation in favor of Deepak Kaushal. The impugned order dated
09.06.1997 (Annexure P-6) reveals that the Nazul Officer, Seoni had issued
public notice and invited objections on application for mutation of Deepak
Kaushal. When no objection was received, the Nazul officer conducted
inquiry and on the basis of undisputed registered adoption deed and the
statement of Sunni Bai, ordered mutation in favor of Deepak Kaushal. This
Court cannot indulge into question of fact regarding proper advertisement
and notice to petitioners or their predecessor-in-title in the mutation
proceeding. Even if, the mutation was premature during lifetime of Sunni
bai, it matured into a valid mutation immediately on her death on
21.08.2000. Thus, the impugned order dated 09.06.1997 (Annexure P-6) and
the subsequent orders of Revenue Authorities in exercise of Appellate and
Revisional jurisdiction do not suffer from patent illegality, manifest
impropriety in exercise of jurisdiction. No case for interference in exercise of
supervisory writ jurisdiction is made out.
11. It is trait law that mutation in revenue records does not create,
extinguish or confer any right, title or interest in the immovable property.
The revenue authorities cannot decide disputed question of title (succession)
in mutation proceedings. If there is a title dispute, the claimant must
approach competent civil Court. The petitioners claimed entitlement for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
13:32:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58580
9 WP-18037-2013
mutation on the basis of succession from deceased, Sunni Bai (second wife
of original owner Birdhichand Kaushal) under Section 15 of Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 as legal heirs of Mahendra Kumar Kaushal, son of
Birdhichand Kaushal. The respondent has raised dispute before the Tahsildar
(in reply to the Application under Section 110 MPLRC filed by the
petitioners annexure P- 2) with regard to entitlement of petitioner and their
predecessor in title, Mahendra Kumar Kaushal to claim succession from
Sunni Bai. The respondent had pleaded that Mahendra Kumar Kaushal and
his mother had filed a civil suit against Birdhichand Kaushal and Sunni Bai
claiming title to the disputed properties. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn
on application of Mahendra Kaushal. Birdhichand Kaushal gave money and
a plot to Mahendra Kaushal, in lieu thereof Mahendra Kaushal relinquished
his rights over other properties of Birdhichand. A registered family
settlement deed was executed on 01.02.1968. The petitioners demanded
proof of adoption of Deepak by Sunnibai, in their reply to Preliminary
objection (Annexure P-4).
12. Apparently, there was a complex dispute to claim of title by
succession from Sunni bai. The questions as to (1) validity of adoption of
respondent Deepak Kaushal, (2) the effect of family settlement of properties
between Mahendra Kumar Kaushal and his father Birdhichand Kaushal and
(3) succession from deceased, Sunni Bai (second wife of original title holder,
Birdhichand Kaushal) under Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as
legal heirs of Mahendra Kumar Kaushal in view of execution of adoption
deed by Sunni bai, were beyond the scope of jurisdiction of Tahsildar under
Sections 109 and 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. In such a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
13:32:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58580
10 WP-18037-2013
scenario, the Tahsildar should have relegated the disputing parties to
competent Civil Court for determination of title under Section 111 of the
M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Instead, the Tahsildar opted to dismiss the
application on preliminary objection of Respondent Deepak Kaushal. Be that
as it may, in any case, the Tahsildar could not have exercised jurisdiction to
grant mutation in favor of petitioners in view of aforestated disputed
questions. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of mutation
as claimed, till they establish their title to the property in question before the
competent civil Court.
13. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
ks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
13:32:56
