1 unreported IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2274 OF 1991. Shivaji S/o Vithal Bavale, Age major, Occ.Service, & Agri., R/o Wadgaon, Tq.Kallam, Dist.Osmanabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Ambrushi S/o Gokul Munde, Age major, Occ. R/o Wadgaon, Tq.Kallam, Dist.Osmanabad. 2. Hanumant S/o Sadashiv Shinde, Age major, R/o Shingoli, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. 3. The Addl. Commissioner, Aurangabad. 4. The Tahsildar, Kallam, Dist.Osmanabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.D.R.Bhadekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.P.Patil (Jamalpurkar), advocate for the Respondent No.2 - absent. Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ... 2 CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 09.02.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgment rendered by learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Revision Application No.26/1989, whereby the order passed by the learned Additional Collector on 19.7.1989 was set aside and that of the Tahsildar was maintained. 2. The petitioner agreed to purchase lands in question from one Santabai W/o Gokul MMunde. He alleged that he was inducted into actual possession of the said small parcels of the lands, which are seven (7) in numbers. His name was recorded vide ME No.963 in the other rights column of the 7/12 record. The petitioner filed a suit (RCS No.43/1978) for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The suit came to be decreed on 15.1.1979. The son of deceased Santabai challenged the mutation entry by filing an application before the Tahsildar on 12.8.1986. The Tahsildar allowed his application. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was partly 3 allowed and the Tahsildar was directed to hold afresh inquiry. The order was challenged before the Additional Commissioner by the son of the petitioner's vendor. By allowing the Revision Application No.26/1989, the learned Additional Commissioner was pleased to set aside the appellate Court's order and set aside the order of the Tahsildar. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned A.G.P. submits that the petition may be decided on merits because no reply was filed. 4. It is important to notice that the decree for specific performance came to be executed and the registered sale deed is now executed in favour of the petitioner on 12.12.1990 through the process of the Court. This sale deed was executed much prior to the date of impugned judgment rendered by the Additional Commissioner. The relevant fact that suit of the petitioner was decreed was brought to 4 the notice of the learned Additional Commissioner. He did not consider the same. All said and done, whatever the initial defect was found in the mutation entry, which was subject matter of the challenge had been removed during pendency of the Revision Application. The learned Additional Commissioner should have taken due notice of the subsequent developments. The cancellation of the mutation entry remained only academic in view of the subsequent developments. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of subsequent mutation entry No.1752 which is recorded on the basis of the sale deed. The question of mutation entry being valid and legal is now of no much importance in view of subsequent development. 5. Considering the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. It is not necessary to make any further inquiry since subsequent mutation is approved vide M.E.No.1752 and, therefore, the petition be deemed as disposed of in the terms as 5 discussed hereinabove. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp227491