SMT. BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR (D) TH. LR.versusARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY & ORS.

812                      [2019]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 812               [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A         SMT. BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR (D) TH. LR.
                                        v.
           ARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 1330 of 2019)
B                         JANUARY 31, 2019
                   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
                      R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
            Mutation:
            Mutation entries – Evidentiary value – Held: Mutation of land
C
      in revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such
      land – It also has no presumptive value on the title – It only enables
      the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land
      revenue in question – Appeal dismissed.
            Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223 : [1996]
D
            5 Suppl. SCR 165; Balwant Singh & Anr. v. Daulat
            Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors, (1997) 7 SCC 137;
            Narasamma & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2009)
            5 SCC 591 : [2009] 4 SCR 929 – relied on.
                              Case Law Reference
E
            [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 165           relied on       Para 8
            (1997) 7 SCC 137                  relied on       Para 8
            [2009] 4 SCR 929                  relied on       Para 8

F           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1330
      of 2019.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2011 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6235 of 2011.
            Shekhar Naphade, Shyam Divan, Sr.Advs., Mahesh Agarwal,
G     Yatin Shah, Gaurav Goel, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Ms. S.Lakshmi Iyer,
      Prateek Rusia, Ms.Aastha Mehta, E.C.Agrawala, Manish Sharma,
      Mrs.Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vjom Raghuvanshi, Pranay Raj Singh,
      Ms.Samiksha, Ms.Deepa M. Kulkarni, Nishant Ramakantrao
      Katneshwarkar, Ms.Asha Gopalan Nair, Advs. for the appearing parties.
H
                                       812
   SMT. BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR (D) TH. LR. v.                                 813
        ARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                A
       ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
      2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 30.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Writ Petition No.6235 of 2011 whereby the Single Judge of the High
Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein.                B

      3. Few facts need mention infra to appreciate the short
controversy involved in this appeal.
       4. The dispute, which has reached to this Court in this appeal at
the instance of one party to such dispute, arises out of and relates to the      C
entries made in the revenue records in relation to the disputed land.
      5. The dispute began from the Court of Superintendent of land
records. Thereafter it reached to the Deputy Director of Land Records
in appeal. It then reached to the State in revision and lastly, in the High
Court in writ petition resulting in passing the impugned order which has         D
given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in this
Court by the appellants.
       6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
       7. The law on the question of mutation in the revenue records
pertaining to any land and what is its legal value while deciding the rights     E
of the parties is fairly well settled by a series of decisions of this Court.
        8. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the
revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land
nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in
whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.            F
(See Sawarni(Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh
& Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137
and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5
SCC 591).
       9. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition placed reliance      G
on the aforementioned law laid down by this Court and we find no good
ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the
High Court. It is just and proper calling for no interference.
      10. It is not in dispute that the civil suits in relation to the land in
question are pending in the Courts between the parties. Therefore, it            H
814             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     would not be proper to embark upon any factual inquiries into the question
      as to whether the entries were properly made or not and at whose instance
      they were made etc. in this appeal. It is more so when they neither
      decide the title nor extinguish the title of the parties in relation to the
      land.
B            11. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to
      entertain the submission of Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel for the
      appellants when he urged the issues on the facts.
            12. To conclude, we find no merit in this appeal. It fails and is
      accordingly dismissed.
C
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                         Appeal dismissed.




D




E




F




G




H