1 WP 4320.2011- [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4320 OF 2011 Sakharam S/o Tukaram Jare Age : 76 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Zopewadi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar presenet R/o : Shingnapur phata, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar Through G.P.A. Vithal S/o Sakharam Jare Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Panaswadi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Divisional Commissioner Nashik Division, Nashik. 2. Smt. Sundarbai W/o Tukaram Jare Age : Major., Occ. Agril., R/o : Zopewadi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar 3. Namdeo S/o Tukaram Jare Age : Major, Occ. Agril., R/o : Zopewadi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar. 4. Smt. Rangubai W/o Tukaram Jare Age : Major, Occ. Agril., R/o : Zopewadi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS 2 WP 4320.2011- [ J ] Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 22/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. A Civil Suit came to be filed between the parties by the present respondent no. 2. The Court decreed the Suit and granted shares to the present petitioner and the respondents. The same are detailed in the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The said Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is confirmed up to this Court. 3. The respondents moved the revenue authorities for necessary mutation entries and the entries in the revenue record pursuant to the said decree. The authority certified the mutation entry No. 3910. The same is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 3 WP 4320.2011- [ J ] 4. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the decree, the present petitioner is awarded 6/25th share, but his name nowhere appears in the allocation of shares as per the mutation entry No. 3910. The petitioner can not be left out from the share. As such, the said mutation entry is not in consonance with the decree passed by the Civil Court. 5. Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in fact the whole property was in possession of the petitioner and his name was appearing. As such, when the said mutation entry No. 3910 was certified, there was no need to show different share to the petitioner. 6. I have perused the said mutation entry, if the said mutation entry was carried out as per the decree. Then the shares of all the parties are required to be carved out in the said mutation entry. The share of the petitioner does not appear to have been carved out and detailed in the mutation entry No. 3910. 7. In light of the above, the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur is set aside only on the ground that the petitioner’s name is not detailed in the said mutation entry which is made pursuant to the decree. The parties shall appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur on 10/10/2011, who shall, after hearing 4 WP 4320.2011- [ J ] the parties, effectuate the proper mutation as per the Judgment and decree of the Civil Court confirmed by the appellate court. 8. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 4320.2011- [ J ]