-: 1 :- wp-6235/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6235 OF 2011 Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar & Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Arthur Import & Export Company & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Vaibhav Jogalekar i/b Mr. Yatin Shah for the petitioner. Mr. R. A. Thorat i/b Mr. P. J. Thorat for R-1 & 2. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for R-3 to 5. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : September 30, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petition pertains to the recording of entries in the Property Register Cards. By the order dated 30/6/2003, the Superintendent of Land Records allowed the respondent’s application and decision of the Enquiry Officer dated 11/1/1964 in respect of the property bearing CTS Nos. 741 and 741/1 to 7, situated at Nahur, Taluka Kurla is revised. This order came to be confirmed by the appellate authority, namely, Dy. Director of Land Records and revisional authority, namely, the State Government in Revenue Department. 3. The petitioner claimed ownership of CTS Nos.741 and srp -: 2 :- wp-6235/11 741/1 to 7, admeasuring about 21,337 square yards. There is no dispute that out of this property, the property admeasuring 14,912 sq. yards is given to respondent no.2 on lease with the condition that respondent no.2 is entitled to purchase it. Respondent no.2 filed suit in the High Court on Original Side for specific performance of the lease agreement. In this suit, the petitioner filed counter claim, alleging that respondent no. 2 is in possession of 21,337 sq. yards, claiming possession of the said area. The 2nd Respondent’s suit is decreed. This decree was carried in appeal. The appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for afresh disposal. So far as Counter Claim is concerned, same was also decreed by the trial Court. The appellate Court set aside the decree on counter claim. The petitioner thereafter has approached Apex Court by filing SLP and same is pending. 4. Thus, title suit/dispute in respect of the land in question is pending in the High Court on original side and also in the Apex Court. The mutation entries or entries in property register card are made for the fiscal purposes only. They neither create nor extinguish title to the property. Reference can be made to (1997) 7 SCC 137 [Balwant Singh & Anr vs. -: 3 :- wp-6235/11 Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs. & Others] and (2009) 5 SCC 591 [Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.] 5. Mr.Jogalekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Superintendent of Land Records, for the first time in the year 2003, could not have disturbed report of the Enquiry Officer, which was carried out in the year 1964. In this regard, he relied upon decision of the Apex Court in Santoshkumar S. Patil & Ors. vs. Balasaheb T. Shevale & Ors. [(2009) 9 SCC 352]. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down in that case. The Apex Court in that case has held that in the absence of prescription of limitation period, the proceedings are to be filed within a reasonable time and normally period of 3 years would be reasonable time. However, the present case pertains to the recording of entries in the property card register. As stated above, these entries do not decide title of the parties and issue regarding title is already pending before the High Court on Original Side. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. However, it is made clear that dispute between the parties regarding title to the properties pending before the -: 4 :- wp-6235/11 Court shall be decided independently, on its own merits and without being influenced by the reasoning given by the revenue authorities in impugned order. (RANJIT MORE, J.)