1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2907 OF 2006. Nivrutti S/o Nathu Mahajan (Ingale) ... Petitioner. Versus Manohar S/o Nathu Ingale and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.H.Vaishnav, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.M.M.Bokharikar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.4(i) to 4(iv) though served - absent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 17.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. One Nathu Mahajan (Ingale) was declared as protected tenant and became statutory owner of 2 land in question (Gat No.905) situated at village Khiroda. There is no dispute about the fact that he was given ownership certificate U/s 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. He has seven (7) sons and the petitioner is one of them. Out of the domestic and financial compulsions, he allegedly alienated the said land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the alienation was consented to by the remaining six (6) brothers. His name was mutated in the concerned revenue record as a purchaser after the encumbrances were removed. The remaining six (6) brothers challenged the revenue entry granted in his favour and asserted that they are also entitled to claim the said land as heirs of deceased Nathu, who demised in the meanwhile, and further challenged the sale transaction itself. The Revenue authorities came to the conclusion that the sale transaction was hit under the provisions of Section 43 of the B.T. and A.L. Act. Therefore, the sale deed did not create any right in favour of the petitioner to claim mutation entry as exclusive owner. The sale being void under the law, the mutation entry 3 in name of the petitioner was deleted and a common entry in name of all the brothers were directed to be taken. The three revenue authorities have concurrently held that the petitioner's name can not be exclusively shown in the concerned record. The concurrent findings rendered by the three Tribunals need not be interfered with in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I am told that certain Civil disputes are going on between the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sale was not in favour of stranger and, moreover, it was by consent of the brothers of the petitioners and, therefore, cancellation of the mutation entry was not called for. He would submit that the sale transactions can be validated and separate proceedings may be commenced by the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to commence separate proceedings for validation of the sale transaction if it is legally permissible. The mutation entries are for fiscal purpose and, therefore, would not come 4 in the way of the petitioner to seek relief in separate proceedings if he would so choose to file such proceedings. Having regard to the concurrent findings and involvement of disputed questions of facts, the petition is dismissed with liberty as mentioned above. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp290706