2019 INSC 0091
           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