SMT. BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR (D) TH. LR. versus ARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY & ORS. on 31 January 2019

812

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 1 S.C.R.

ASMT. 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 ANDR. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]

Mutation:

Mutation entries – Evidentiary value – Held: Mutation of landCin revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over suchland – It also has no presumptive value on the title – It only enablesthe person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the landrevenue in question – Appeal dismissed.

Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223 : [1996]D5 Suppl. SCR 165; Balwant Singh & Anr. v. DaulatSingh(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

FCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1330of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2011 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6235 of 2011.

Shekhar Naphade, Shyam Divan, Sr.Advs., Mahesh Agarwal,GYatin 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 RamakantraoKatneshwarkar, Ms.Asha Gopalan Nair, Advs. for the appearing parties.

H

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 orderdated 30.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay inWrit Petition No.6235 of 2011 whereby the Single Judge of the HighCourt dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein.

3. Few facts need mention infra to appreciate the shortcontroversy involved in this appeal.

4. The dispute, which has reached to this Court in this appeal atthe instance of one party to such dispute, arises out of and relates to theentries made in the revenue records in relation to the disputed land.

5. The dispute began from the Court of Superintendent of landrecords. Thereafter it reached to the Deputy Director of Land Recordsin appeal. It then reached to the State in revision and lastly, in the HighCourt in writ petition resulting in passing the impugned order which hasgiven rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave in thisCourt by the appellants.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The law on the question of mutation in the revenue recordspertaining to any land and what is its legal value while deciding the rightsof 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 therevenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such landnor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person inwhose 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 137and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5SCC 591).

9. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition placed relianceon the aforementioned law laid down by this Court and we find no goodground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by theHigh 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 inquestion are pending in the Courts between the parties. Therefore, it B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awould not be proper to embark upon any factual inquiries into the questionas to whether the entries were properly made or not and at whose instancethey were made etc. in this appeal. It is more so when they neitherdecide the title nor extinguish the title of the parties in relation to theland.

B11. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined toentertain the submission of Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel for theappellants when he urged the issues on the facts.

12. To conclude, we find no merit in this appeal. It fails and isaccordingly dismissed.

C

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal dismissed.

D

E

F

G

H