1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 58. WP/7334/2009 (SUDHAKAR VITHAL BOTHE V/S EAKNATH VITHAL BOTHE) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Amol S.Gandhi, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. V.G.Shelke, AGP, for respondent State/nos. 2 and 3. Mr. S.P.Chapalgaonkar, Adv., for respondent no.1. ... CORAM:K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 28/9/2010 ... 1. Heard extensively. The controversy revolves to effecting mutation in respect of CTS No.743, situate at Rahata, taluka Rahata, dist. Ahmednagar. The respondent Eaknath approached the learned Superintendent of Land Records, Ahmednagar, in Appeal No.1848/2006, informing that the mutation in respect of CTS No. 743 should be made in his name based on the registered partition deed of 28.12.1964. At the material time, the property was recorded in the name of State of Maharashtra. It was, thereafter, in 1978 or 1979, mutation was effected in the name of petitioner Sudhakar Vithal Bothe. Ekanath and Sudhakar both are brothers. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner informs 2 that the partition deed of 1964 was never acted upon and surreptitiously, after 40 years, the respondent Ekanath has moved the authorities to get his name mutated. He also urged that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, has been paying municipal taxes continuously. These aspects, according to him, are not considered by the authorities. 3. Sitting in the writ, this Court is not required to travel to the disputed question of facts. The scope is limited. The partition deed of 1964 is not in controversy. Both the authorities have considered that the property was erroneously mutated in the name of the State and correction was warranted which correction was accordingly done by the learned Superintendent, Land Records, confirmed by the learned Deputy Director, Land Records. 4. In the situation, no interference in the order under challenge is warranted. This Court has not adjudicated to the aspect of possession or enjoyment of the petitioner; if he is in possession. It is for the authorities to get their rights settled in proper forum. Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... (agp:7334-09wp)