( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3819 OF 1996 1. Shivaji s/o. Raosaheb Thorbole, .. Petitioners Age. 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, residing at Gojwada, Tal. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Apparao s/o. Raosaheb Thorbole, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, Residing as above. 3. Ramling s/o. Raosaheb Thorbole, Age. Major, Occ. & Resi. As above. Versus 1. Ambrushi s/o. Annal Thorbole, .. Respondents deceased, per LRs. a) Lochanabai w/o. Ambrushi Thorbole, Age. 60 years, Occ. Agri., residing at Gohjwada, Tal. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad. b) Bibishan s/o. Ambrushi Thorbole, Age. 35 years, Occ. & Resi. As above. c) Mittu s/o. Ambrushi Thorbole, Age. Major, Occ. Agri., and resi. As above. d) Bajrang s/o. Ambrushi Thorbole, age. Major, Occ. & Resi. As above. ( 2 ) e) Makardwaj s/o. Ambrushi Thorbole, Age. Major, Occ. & resi. As above. f) Pintu @ Vilas s/o. Ambrushi Thorbole, Age. Major, Occ. & Resi. As above. g) Shakuntalabai w/o. Harishchandra Kadam, Age. Major, Occ. Agri., and household, residing at Diksal, Tal. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Janardhan s/o. Annasaheb Thorbole, deceased, per LRs. a) Haridas s/o. Janardhan Thorbole, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, residing at Gojwada, Tal. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. b) Subrao s/o. Janardhan Thorbole, Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, Residing at – as above. c) Anna s/o. Janardhan Thorbole, Age. Major, Occ. Agri., residence – as above. d) Pundlik s/o. Janardhan Thorbole, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, residing as above. Shri Dnyanesh Mundhe h/f. Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 1(d). CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.09.2009 ( 3 ) ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri Dnyanesh Mundhe h/f. Adv. Shri S.B. Talekar for the petitioners and Adv. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni for respondent No. 1 (d). As per the petitioners they are cultivating lands Survey Nos. 146, 147 and 148, situated at village Gojwada, Tal. Kallam. They had made application for entering their names as cultivators in the cultivation column to the Tahsildar, Kallam. By said application dated 27.07.1981, they also requested that their names be also entered in the cultivation column of 7/12 extracts of the suit lands by deleting the cultivation entries already standing in the name of Ambrushi and Janardhan for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. It is also alleged that one Balwantrai Deshmukh was the Saheb Muntakhab of these Inam lands being Madatmash Inams. Said Madatmash Inams stood abolished under the provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. The Tahsildar granted occupancy rights of the suit land in favour of their father deceased Raosaheb and two of his brothers i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The father of the petitioners had applied for correction of occupancy ( 4 ) certificate and grant of occupancy rights in his favour. 2. Aggrieved by the order of granting occupancy right and certificate, deceased Ambrushi and Janardhan (who were respondent Nos. 1 and 2) filed appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal vide order dated 1st October, 1969 and thereafter respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed appeal to the District Collector, Osmanabad. The Collector remanded the matter to Tahsildar for fresh inquiry. After making inquiry the Tahsildar again came to the conclusion that the father of the petitioner was real occupant and confirmed occupancy right in the name of the father of the petitioners vide order dated 26.06.1980. A writ petition ultimately filed in this Court and same is still pending. Thus order of confirming occupancy right on the father of the petitioner was confirmed by all authorities. The orders passed in Writ Petition No. 33 of 1985 are quoted on page 5 of the petition. So, it is prayed that the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners may be implemented. It appears from para 6 of the petition that the respondent had approached Civil Court for police protection ( 5 ) and they had also filed Civil Revision Application No. 917 of 1991, seeking protection in the shape of temporary injunction. However, the Court did not grant application holding that the Trial Court has rightly held that such question can be considered on the basis of evidence and prima facie there was no case. 3. The learned advocates for both sides, when specifically asked, stated that they are not aware of the further development after filing of the petition in the year 1996. It is abundantly clear that the litigation is also pending in the Civil Court. In it rights of the parties are agitated. This writ petition is necessarily directed against the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in a proceedings initiated against the mutation entry. In my considered opinion, such writ petition can not be entertained in absence of information as to what rights of parties were declared by the Civil Court. Ultimately, the entries taken by the Revenue Officers in the revenue record are necessary for fiscal purposes and they do not confer right on any party, nor do they divest rights already vested. So, in the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with ( 6 ) direction to the parties that they shall abide by the decision of the Civil Court. 4. Rule discharged and writ petition is disposed of accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/wp3819.96