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. Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Th. LR ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. …Respondent(s)

          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