1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders WRIT PETITION NO.3049/2009 Mr.H.V.Patil, adv. for petitioner Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for State R-7 to 9 R-1 to 4, 5A to 5C and 6 served. Adv. Mr. G.R. Ingole Patil for R.1,2,4,5A and 6. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2009. 1. The petitioner is raising challenge to the order passed by appellate authority whereby entry recorded by the Municipal Council, Nanded has been set aside. It is contended that appeal itself was presented without tendering on record application for condonation of delay. Order passed by the Appellate authority therefore, is required to be quashed. The petitioner contends that he has purchased the house property in the year 1971 in the name of his father Hasan Bin Obaid. Father of the petitioner died and after his demise names of all family members were recorded. It is his contention that in the year 1981 Municipal record was corrected and name of petitioner alone came to be recorded. However, at the instance of respondents, names of other family members who are legal heirs, and who are entitled 2 to have share also have been incorporated. Petitioner contends that name of the petitioner alone is required to be recorded on consideration of the letters of no objection issued by the other members of the family. 2. The respondent no.1, is the mother of the petitioner whereas other respondents are purchasers of part of property from family members. They controverted entitlement of the petitioner alone to ancestral property. The appellate Court has adopted a view that in the facts and circumstances it would be appropriate for the petitioner to get his right and entitlement decided from the competent civil court. The orders passed by the appellate forum in the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be erroneous. Mutation entries those have been recorded would always be subject to determination of right, title of the petitioner in civil proceedings. Considering the nature of the dispute, and on perusal of the impugned order, I am of view that, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under 227 of constitution of India, no interference is called for. Petition stands rejected. [ R. M. BORDE, J. ] Dt : 09.11.2009 aaa/3049.09 ...