1 CGHC010024242023 2026:CGHC:34505 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 439 of 2023 1 - Ramniwas Chandraker W/o Late Shri Nankuram Chandraker, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Rasni, Tehsil Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, New Mantrlaya, Village Rakhi, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divsional Ofifcer, Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar, Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ramanand Chandraker, S/o Shri Jeevan Lal Chandraker, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Bemcha, Tehsil And, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For State :- Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. For Respondent No. 5 :- Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 06.08.2026 1. By way of this petition, following reliefs have been prayed:- “1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside the order dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure P – 7) passed by Board of Revenue in the interest of justice. 2. Any other writ or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued. An affidavit in support of the writ petition is filled herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mutation order has been passed solely on the basis of a registered Will alleged to have been executed in favour of respondent No. 5. It is contended that, at an earlier point of time, respondent No. 5 had sought mutation on the basis of an adoption deed, which application came to be rejected by the Tahsildar. Thereafter, by suppressing the earlier proceedings and playing fraud upon the revenue authorities, respondent No. 5 filed a fresh application seeking mutation on the strength of the alleged Will. It is submitted that the very genuineness and validity of the Will is 3 seriously disputed and, therefore, no mutation could have been sanctioned merely on the basis of the said document. Learned counsel further submits that the Tahsildar, after considering the aforesaid aspects, rightly rejected the application for mutation. However, the Sub- Divisional Officer, while allowing the appeal, failed to consider the disputed nature of the Will and proceeded only on the premise that it was a registered document. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner contending that mere registration of a Will does not dispense with the requirement of proving its due execution and attestation in accordance with law and, therefore, mutation cannot be sanctioned solely on the basis of a registered Will. The Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is further submitted that in the revision preferred before the Board of Revenue, the Board rightly observed that none of the attesting witnesses to the Will had been examined before the revenue authorities and, in the absence of proof of execution in the manner contemplated under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Will could not be treated as duly proved. It is, therefore, submitted that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner were contrary to law, and the Board of Revenue rightly interfered with the same. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the revenue authorities have passed the orders in accordance with the provisions of law after considering the material available on record. It is submitted that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and no declaration of title 4 or validity of any document is adjudicated therein. Learned counsel further submits that the Board of Revenue has considered the relevant aspects while passing the impugned order and no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the Will deed dated 25.03.2003 has never been questioned before any competent Court of law and its validity or genuineness has not been challenged in any independent proceedings. It is contended that the petitioner had not disputed the veracity of the Will before the Commissioner or any other appropriate forum and, therefore, cannot raise such a dispute for the first time before the revenue authorities. It is further submitted that the revenue proceedings relating to mutation are summary in nature and the revenue authorities are not competent to adjudicate upon the validity of a Will or decide disputed questions of title. If the petitioner seeks to challenge the genuineness or validity of the Will, he has to avail the appropriate remedy by instituting a civil suit before the competent civil court, which has admittedly not been done. In the absence of any challenge to the Will by way of appropriate civil proceedings, the order passed on the basis of the registered Will does not suffer from any illegality and has rightly been affirmed by the authorities below. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The limited question which arises for consideration before this 5 Court is as to whether the revenue authorities were justified in directing mutation solely on the basis of the registered Will dated 25.03.2003. 7. It is well settled that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and the revenue authorities are not vested with jurisdiction to finally adjudicate upon complicated questions relating to title or the validity and genuineness of a testamentary document. The validity of a Will, its due execution and attestation in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, can be examined only by a competent court of law in appropriate proceedings. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has disputed the genuineness and validity of the Will and has contended that the same could not have been relied upon without examination of the attesting witnesses. Though such contention raises a disputed question regarding the validity of the Will, no proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner before the competent civil court seeking a declaration with regard to the validity or otherwise of the said Will. Therefore, at this stage, the revenue authorities were not required to conclusively adjudicate upon the validity of the Will. 9. However, the observation made by the Sub-Divisional Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner that mutation could be granted merely on the basis of the fact that the Will is a registered document, cannot be said to be a correct proposition of law. Mere registration of a Will by itself does not establish its due execution and validity, as required under the provisions of law. 6 10. In Leela and Others vs. Muruganantham and Others (2025) 4 SCC 289, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “22. There can be no doubt with respect to the manner in which execution of a will is to be proved. In the light of plethora of decisions including the decisions in Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad and in Derek A.C. Lobo case this position is well settled that mere registration of a will would not attach to it a stamp of validity and it must still be proved in terms of the legal mandates under the provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. It is not the case of the appellant that the will dated 6-4-1990 is a registered one.” 11. Due execution of the Will requires examination of at least one of the attesting witnesses, in accordance with the requirements prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, so as to establish its due execution and attestation. At the same time, in the absence of any declaration by a competent civil court holding the Will to be invalid, the mutation entry made on the basis of the said Will cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction. The said entry shall always remain subject to the final adjudication by the competent civil court regarding the validity of the Will and the rights flowing therefrom. 12. In the matter of Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in 7 (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. 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 8 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. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.” 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no interference with the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue is warranted. However, it is clarified that the mutation order shall not confer any right, title or interest upon respondent No. 5 and shall remain subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings that may be initiated by the petitioner or any other person challenging the validity of the Will. 14. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent civil court, if so advised. 15. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 16. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha