Chandesh vs Naresh

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, allowing an appeal preferred by Respondent No. 1 against revenue mutation entries recorded in favour of the petitioner's father, Dinesh Mishra, on the basis of a Will executed by one Girja Bai in respect of khasra Nos. 174 and 175, total area 2.07 hectares. The petitioner contended that once the Revision filed by Respondent No. 1 had been dismissed by the Additional Collector, no second appeal was maintainable, and the Revenue Authority had correctly directed Respondent No. 1 to seek a civil court declaration of title.

The principal question considered by the Court was whether a Revenue Authority has jurisdiction to mutate the name of a person in revenue records on the basis of a Will. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (SLP (Civil) No. 13146/2021, decided 06.09.2021), which reiterated the settled legal position since Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137, that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title and has no presumptive value on title; such entries serve only a fiscal purpose for collection of land revenue, and questions of title can only be decided by a competent civil court.

The Court also referred to its own earlier decision in Anand Kumar Jain and Another v. Chandra Kumar Jain and Others (M.P. No. 4458/2023, decided 16.02.2024), which had held that title can be acquired by virtue of a Will and mutation can follow such acquisition, but that before a person seeks to take advantage of a document such as a Will, the validity of that document must first be established before a competent forum. The matter was under consideration at the admission stage.

Catchwords: Writ petition · Article 226 · revenue mutation · Will · jurisdiction of revenue authority · title to property · civil court · land revenue · certiorari · Madhya Pradesh Revenue law · Niyam 2018 · second appeal · maintainability