1 wp 7922.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7922 OF 2010 Hiraman Baldeo Gosavi .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri C. P. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 6, 10 and 11. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 04TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The dispute between the parties pertains to the mutation entries. The consolidation scheme was effected somewhere in the year 1975-76. The petitioner after long slumber in the year 1998 moved an application for correction. Initially the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed. The present respondents assailed the same before the Additional Collector, who allowed the appeal. Against the said judgment present petitioner preferred revision before the Commissioner, who dismissed the revision. The 2 wp 7922.10 petitioner has assailed the same in the present petition. 2. Shri Bhokrikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 01.10.1957 mutation entry was effected bearing Mutation Entry No. 848. Only the land was allotted to the petitioner’s father about 38 Guntha. The mutation entry No. 1165 was also effected showing the land allotted to the petitioner’s father. The area of the land cannot be revised by way of mutation entry. The same was shown in the consolidation record. As such the proceedings were rightly initiated by the petitioner and the Sub Divisional Officer taking into consideration these aspects had passed an order to correct the same. But the Additional Collector and Commissioner failed to consider this aspect. 3. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for respondents submits that, even the present petitioner has filed civil suit bearing Spl. C. S. No. 229/2009 for declaration that the properties are joint family properties and for partition with other consequential relief and the same is pending. 4. The entries in the revenue record are meant for fiscal 3 wp 7922.10 purpose. The entries did not confer any ownership right on the parties when the civil suit is already pending. The rights of the parties would be decided by the Civil Court and the revenue entries are to be effected on the basis of findings recorded by the Civil Court. After long delay of more than 22 years, the petitioner has moved for correction. The revisional court has properly considered this aspect. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11