1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2495 OF 2009 1 Ambadas Namdeo Upadhe (Bhat) and others Petitioners Versus 1 Murlidhar Nanu Patil and others Respondents Mr.S.H.Tripati, advocate for petitioners. None for Respondents, though served. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri S.H.Tripathi, learned Counsel for petitioners. 2 Recording of mutation entries in respect of non agricultural property in the name of respondents/defendants by the officers of City Survey Department, is a matter of challenge in this petition. In spite of issuance of notice to the Respondents, none appears. Hence, matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 It is the contention of petitioners that the property in dispute is ancestral property belonging to them. It is recorded in their names since last many years. An application was tendered by respondents for mutating their 2 names in respect of the property in dispute. However, the request was turned down by the competent authority on 09.10.1986 and it was also advised to the respondents, if deem necessary, they may approach competent Court and seek declaration in that behalf. It is contended that without disclosing the aspect of rejection of earlier application, again proceedings were initiated before the same authority and the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, which is the lower authority than the authority, who has passed earlier order of rejection, while entertaining the application filed by Respondents, allowed same and directed deletion of name of petitioners.. The order passed by Taluka Inspector of Land Records has been confirmed by Superintendent of Land Records in an appeal presented by petitioners herein. 4 I have perused the order passed by authorities below. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for petitioner that petitioner has already moved Civil Court seeking decree of perpetual injunction by presenting R.C.S. No.171/2005 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon and it is further stated that suit is pending for final disposal. The right, title and entitlement of the parties in relation to the property are required to be determined in pending civil litigation. So far as entries recorded by the 3 survey officials are concerned, same are for purposes of revenue recovery and those entries have no effect on the right, title and entitlement of the parties in relation to the property in dispute. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, it is necessary to direct that the orders, which are subject matter of challenge in this petition, shall be subject to final outcome of civil litigation i.e. R.C.S. No.171/2005 and same shall be kept in abeyance until decision by the competent civil court. No interference is required to be caused in this petition in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5 Petition, therefore, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE adb/wp249509