(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1295 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1375 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 1295 OF 2010 Sudhakar s/o. Pandurang Dhakne, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bawi, Taluka : Shirur Kasar, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 2. The Additional Collector, Beed. 3. Chandrakant @ Chandu Raghunath Dhakne, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bavi, Taluka : Shirur Kasar, District : Beed. (2) 4. Raghunath s/o. Mahadeo Dhakne, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above. .. Respondents. ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 1375 OF 2010 Smt. Gangubai Pandurang Dhakne, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bawi, Taluka : Shirur Kasar, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 2. The Additional Collector, Beed. 3. Chandrakant @ Chandu Raghunath Dhakne, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bavi, Taluka : Shirur Kasar, District : Beed. 4. Raghunath s/o. Mahadeo Dhakne, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above. .. Respondents. (3) ........................ Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for the petitioners in both petitions. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2 in both petitions. Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate, for respondent no.3 in both petitions. Respondent no.4 absent, though served in both petitions. ************** CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. In both these petitions, the owners who claim to have purchased property by registered sale deed are assailing identical orders passed by the respondent no.1 / Additional Divisional Commissioner in mutation proceedings on 1-10-2009 in revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The said authority has partly allowed those revisions. (4) 2. I have heard Adv. Mr. S.S. Thombre, for both the petitioners and Adv. Mr. N.L. Jadhav, for respective respondent no.3. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, learned AGP has appeared for respondent nos.1 and 2. 3. During the course of hearing, it has come to notice of this Court that both the parties have filed Civil Suits against each other. The respondent no.3 has filed Civil Suit for cancellation of sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners and petitioners have filed Civil Suits for perpetual injunction to protect their possession. In those Civil Suits filed by the petitioners, order of temporary injunction is operating in their favour. Adv. Mr. N.L. Jadhav is not aware about any such temporary injunction. However, in view of statement made by Adv. Mr. Thombre, the said fact is taken on record. 4. In view of pending civil litigation, it is apparent that the orders passed by the revenue authorities or then entries in revenue records are not decisive and determinative in any way. The Civil Court has to decide the controversy independently and uninfluenced by those orders. The orders of Civil Court are binding upon revenue authorities and revenue records are bound to be corrected as per adjudication therein. (5) 5. I, therefore, find that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners in the matter by the impugned orders in both the petitions. The petitions are, therefore, disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1295etc