REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.1330  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.9394 of 2012)

Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Th. LR                      ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors.            …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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.       

1

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 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 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 of the

2

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. (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 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

3

Courts between the parties. Therefore, it 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.

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.   

                      ………...................................J.      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

   …...……..................................J.              [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi; January 31, 2019

4