1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5826 OF 2010 Uttam s/o Rajaram Munde & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Dinkar s/o Venka Munde & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.A. Ambad, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 13 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Petitioners herein are challenging the order passed by the revenue authority relating to mutation of names in revenue record. It is informed that in Regular Civil Suit no. 50/1976 an issue in respect of tenancy of petitioners and the respondents was referred for adjudication to the tenancy authority. There is final adjudication in respect of issue of tenancy by the tenancy authority. The judgment delivered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was 2 subjected to challenge in the writ petition which has already been disposed of and the special leave petition presented challenging the judgment of the High Court has also been disposed of. Thus, determination in respect of tenancy rights of the parties has attained finality. It is also informed that the suit wherein the issue of tenancy was referred is disposed of as having been abated. It further transpires that Regular Civil Suit no. 79/2009 is presented to the civil court and the same is pending for adjudication. The civil court is expected to decide the issue in respect of title or entitlement of the parties in relation to the property, after considering the rival contentions those would be raised by the parties. 2 It is well established that the revenue entires are recorded for fiscal purpose and those in themselves are not evidence of title or entitlement of the parties in relation to the property. The revenue entries have to be corrected / modified in accordance with the decision that would be rendered by the civil court in pending civil suit. Civil court would of course take into account the adjudication by the tenancy authority in respect of entitlement of the parties in relation to the property in question. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the petition. Petition stands rejected. 3 3 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp5826.10.odt