(1) WP. 1771.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1771 OF 2010 Satpal S/o Mahadevrao Dhakne, Age : 28 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kaudgaon, Post. Ballali Pimpla, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 2. The Additional Collector, Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed 4. The Tahsildar, Georai, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed 5. Ashok S/o Vikram Pawar, Age : 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Kaudgaon, Post. Ballali Pimpla, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for the respondent-State Mr. G.K. Naik Thigale, Advocate h/f. Mr. R.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent no.5 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 3RD AUGUST, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard counsel. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional (2) WP. 1771.2010 Officer, Beed on 28.11.2006 in Appeal no. 2006/ROR-40 and order passed by learned Additional Collector, Beed, as well as Commissioner, Aurangabad in the proceedings arising out of mutation. There is no dispute about the fact that a portion of the land in question i.e. original survey no.120/2 was acquired by the Government. The petitioner claims to have purchased the share which was with Anant S/o Vishwanath Pawar. The petitioner’s contention is that mutation entry should have been granted in his favour on the basis of the sale transaction between himself and said Anant. The mutation entry was challenged by the respondent no.5 Ashok. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal against the mutation entry no.213 which was cancelled. The mutation entry was cancelled by the appellate authority on the premise that vendor of the petitioner could be holder of 65R land but seemingly had sold excessive 13R land. The petitioner claims to have purchased land to the extent of 78R from said Anant Pawar. The disputed question involved is whether said Anant Pawar i.e. vendor of the (3) WP. 1771.2010 petitioner could have been owner of said 78R land out of gat no. 120/2 in view of the shares of other co- sharers and the area which was acquired by the Government. The authorities have held that excess 13R land was sold by Anant Pawar to the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that there was no transferable interest with him. 2. Admittedly, civil dispute is pending about the ownership rights in respect of said 13R land. The mutation entry to the extent of entire area has been refused and the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner have concurrently held that the petitioner was entitled to get the mutation entry only to the extent of 65R which was available with his vendor. The concurrent findings cannot be interferred with, unless they are found to be demonstratively perverse. 3. As said earlier, the Petition involves disputed question of fact i.e. whether vendor of the petitioner really held 65R land or 78R land? (4) WP. 1771.2010 Considering these aspects, no interference in the impugned orders is called for. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. The mutation entry recorded, however, shall be subject to the final outcome of the civil dispute and if the civil Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is really owner of 78R land has sold by Anant Pawar, the petitioner will be entitled to seek modification of the mutation entry accordingly. Till then, granted mutation entry to the extent of 65R may be deemed as adhoc mutation and the final decision would depend on the finding of the Civil Court. 4. The observations made in this order shall not be considered by the Civil Court or by any other authority in other proceedings. No finding is recorded on the disputed question of fact regarding the ownership right of the petitioner. Ad-interim relief, if any, is vacated. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp