Full Judgment Text
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
Signature Not Verified
the appellants herein.
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.01.31
17:34:25 IST
Reason:
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