1 wp-1010-10.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1010 OF 2010 Shree Renuka Construction Co. .. Petitioners Versus Mangalaprasad Bansidhar Shrivastav & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar Senior Advocate with Mr. Neel Helekar and Mr. S.A.Abhyankar for the Petitioners Mr. P. K.Samdhani Senior Advocate with Mr. H. S. Shreepadmurthy i/b Mr. S.A.Bhagwat for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 15th December, 2011 P.C. 1 The Order impugned is one dated 30-9-2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 by which Order, the Revision Application filed by the Respondents herein came to be allowed and the Order dated 23-10-2008 passed by the Deputy Collector (Appeals) in Appeal No.24 of 2007 came to be set aside and resultantly the Mutation entry No.7224 in favour of the Petitioners stood cancelled. 2 The said Mutation Entry No.7224 effected in favour of the Petitioners, was on the basis of the transaction, that the heirs of the 2 wp-1010-10.sxw Original owner has entered into with the Petitioners. The entry in favour of the heirs bearing Mutation Entry No.6769 was effected in the year 1985. 3 It is required to be noted that the original owner Bhaskar Ramji Bhoir has executed a Conveyance in favour of the Respondent No.1 on 16-4-1980. The said conveyance was lodged for registration on the same day and ultimately the registration was done on 15-12-2006. It is pending the registration of the said document that the entry in favour of the heirs was made in the year 1985 and thereafter some of the heirs had entered into a transaction with the Petitioners on 27-10-2005. It appears that the said transaction was entered into by some of the heirs after a notice in that respect was published pursuant to which notice, the Respondent No.1 herein had lodged his objections on 29-8-2005. It appears that thereafter some correspondence ensued between the respective Advocates of the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1, which is, in my view, not material for the purposes of the present Petition. 4 Suffice it to say that in view of the entry made in favour of the Respondent No.1 herein, the same triggered off proceedings before the Revenue authorities for setting aside the said entry which has culminated in the impugned order. 3 wp-1010-10.sxw 5 It is required to be noted that by a conveyance dated 16-4-1980 what has been conveyed to the Respondent No.1 is an area of 5057 sq.yds out of 6185.7 sq.yds. Hence, the upshot of the impugned Order is that the Mutation Entry effected in favour of the Respondent No.1 would be restricted only to the area of 5057 sq.yds. In respect of the balance area, the original Mutation Entry No.7224 would therefore continue. 6 The property registration card in respect of the said property in question would accordingly have to be rectified. Since it is well settled that the entries made in the Revenue record are only for fiscal purposes, the Petitioners herein would be entitled to agitate their grievance in respect of their claim or title to the entire land by filing appropriate proceedings in the Civil Court. If the said proceedings are filed by the Petitioners, needless to say that the same would be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the revenue entries. The impugned Order therefore to stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 7 With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The concerned authorities to act upon a copy of the instant Order. ( R. M. SAVANT, J. )