1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2646 OF 2009 Office notes, office memoranda of Corum, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s Judge’s orders. Mrs. Sabahat Kazi, Counsel for Petitioner. Mr. N.H.Borade, A.G.P. for Respondent- State. Mr.R.P.Bhumkar,Counsel for Respondent No. 2 Mr. V.B. Patil, Counsel for Respondent No. 3. ................... [ CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. ] DATE : 24/7/2009 PER COURT : 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner challenges the Order dated 24/2/2009 passed by the Revenue Commissioner, Nasik in Appeal No. 80 of 2006. 2 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed Revision Application No. 40 of 2004 under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 challenging the mutation entry No. 123 of 1999 in the name of respondent no. 3. The learned Sub Divisional Officer came to the conclusion that land being ancestral and as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, daughter is entitled to separate share. Learned Sub Divisional Officer allowed the Revision Application No. 40 of 2005 on 25 th January, 2005. Against this order dated 25 th January, 2005, Respondent no. 3 preferred R.T.S. Appeal No. 27 of 2005 before the learned Additional Collector, Jalgaon. The said revision was allowed by the Additional Collector by Order dated 31/12/2005 in R.T.S. No. 27 of 2005. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 80 of 2006 before the Revenue Commissioner . Authority dismissed Appeal No. 80 of 2006. 3 3. It is the case of the petitioners that being a member of Hindu undivided family, she is entitled to share in Hindu Undivided Property. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 3 behind her back, mutated G.No. 54/1 in her name. The Revenue Commissioner rejected the Appeal No. 80 of 2006 mainly on the ground that petitioner has already preferred R.C.S. No. 12 of 2005 for partition and same is pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhusawal. The Commissioner also observed that the decision of the Civil Court is binding on revenue authority. Therefore, considering these facts, the revenue Commissioner rejectred Appeal No. 80 of 2006. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has filed R.C.S. No. 12 of 2005, the respondent no. 3 may create third party interest in respect of the suit property. That is not a subject matter of present petition. 4 4. In any case, decision given by the Civil Court is binding on subsequent transaction, if any, done by the parties. Considering these facts that petitioner filed R.C.S. No. 12 of 2005 for partition of property, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. [ K.K.TATED ] JUDGE knp/wp2646.09 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14