ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2647 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 2647 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 2647 OF 2008 Nandkumar Gopal Kulkarni ...Petitioner Vs. Murlidhar Ganpat Khade & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/by Mr.Sugandh B.Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr.P.B.Shah for Respondent No.1. Mr.D.A.Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1722 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1722 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1722 OF 2008 Sanjay Narayan Patole & Anr. ...Petitioner Vs. Murlidhar Ganpat Khade & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani i/by M/s.Y.K.S.Legal for the Petitioner. Mr.P.B.Shah for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 30th July, 2008 : 30th July, 2008 : 30th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard Mr.Anturkar and Mr.Dani, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in above Writ petitions respectively and Mr.Shah for Respondent No.1. 2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2647 of 2008 ( 2 ) alleged to have purchased a land belonging to the Respondent No.1 and Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1772 of 2008 is the subsequent purchaser of the said land. There is no dispute that the land in question was purchased by the Respondent under the provisions of Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act-1948 (for short,"BT & AL Act") and therefore, prior permission under Section 43 of the BT & AL Act is required for transferring the same. According to the Petitioner such permission was granted on 21/06/1996. On the contrary, it is the case of the Respondent No.1 was that the same was granted on 01/05/1996. There is no dispute that within the period of three months from date of grant of permission the sale deed is required to be executed. The sale deed was executed on 18/09/1996 in favour of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2647 of 2008. The Confirmation deed was also executed on 20/11/1997. On the basis of deed of confirmation, the Mutation entry No.5225 was effected by the circle officer. The said Mutation entry was challenged by the Respondent No.1 before the S.D.O. The S.D.O. reversed this Mutation Entry in an appeal filled by the Respondent No.1. The Collector confirmed the above order of S.D.O. however, the Commissioner reversed the order of S.D.O.and therefore, Respondent preferred the Revision before the ( 3 ) Minister which was allowed by the impugned order. 3. It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that the Petitioner has filed the suit for injunction in Civil Courts against the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 has also filed the suit for declaration that the confirmation deed is illegal and both the suits are at the advanced stage of hearing. The title of the suit property in question will be decided by the civil court after hearing the parties concerned and going into the documents of the confirmation sale-deed etc. It is settled law that the Mutation entries are effected for fiscal purposes. It does not create nor distinguished any right. In view of the fact that the dispute in respect of the land, the subject matter of these petitions is already pending before competent Civil Court, I am not inclined to interfere in both the Writ Petitions. The petitions, are therefore, dismissed. 4. Needless to mention that the Civil Court shall decide the title of the property in question independently and on its own merit and without being influenced by the impugned order passed by the Minister. All the points and contentions are expressly kept open. ( 4 ) ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)