1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8496 OF 2009 Vishnu s/o Dagdu Wani, Petitioner Versus Sravan s/o Dagdu Wani (since deceased) through L.Rs. And others Respondents Mr.P.K.Joshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.R.Patil, advocate for Respondent No.1/3. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 06th April, 2010. P.C.: 1 This petition can be disposed of in view of the statement made on instructions by learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/3. 2 The dispute is in between two brothers in respect of landed property. Civil Suit presented by original plaintiffs – Respondents herein has been dismissed, whereas challenge raised to the decree of trial Court before first appellate Court has also been turned down. However, it is stated that Second Appeal raising challenge to the judgment and decree passed by Courts below is already admitted and pending for disposal. Taking advantage of judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, entry in the column of ownership as well as cultivation was changed at the instance of petitioner herein. However, Respondents presented Revision Application to the State Government and while entertaining Revision Application, learned Minister for Revenue has directed cancellation of entry recorded by revenue officials in respect of ownership of petitioner herein bearing No.4157 and has further ordered that the revenue entry in respect of ownership of the parties in relation to the property in dispute shall be 2 subject to final outcome of Second Appeal No.405/2005 pending in this Court. 3 A grievance is made by petitioner that taking disadvantage of the order passed by learned Minister, name of petitioner has been deleted from cultivation as well as ownership columns and he further apprehends his dispossession at the hands of Respondents. It is contended that both the Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that petitioner herein is in possession of disputed property. 4 Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/3- original plaintiff, on instructions, states that possession of petitioner herein in relation to the disputed property is admitted and no interference to his possession would be caused by plaintiffs taking advantage of decision rendered by Minister. 5 The rights and entitlement of the parties in relation to disputed property would be subject to final outcome of Second Appeal No.405/2005 pending in this Court. In this view of matter, interest of petitioner to remain to continue in possession over disputed property stands protected as original plaintiff has made statement in this Court in that behalf. As ordered by learned Minister, in his judgment dated 25.08.2009, entries recorded by revenue officials in respect of ownership of the parties and cancellation of mutation entry no.4157 would be subject to final outcome of the pending Second Appeal and order passed by Minister in Revision shall not have any effect on the entitlement of petitioner to remain in possession over property in dispute. 6 Writ Petition, therefore, stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE adb/wp849609 *******