A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
SMT. BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR (D) TH. LR.
v.
ARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1330 of 2019)
JANUARY 31, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Mutation:
Mutation entries – Evidentiary value – Held: Mutation of land
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]
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
[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
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,
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.
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 812
812
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
813
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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.
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 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 Courts between the parties. Therefore, it
SMT. BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR (D) TH. LR. v.
ARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
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.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal dismissed.
Lex