1 wp 6859.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6859 OF 2011 Bhatabai Damu Koli and another .. Petitioners Versus Kamalbai Kadu Koli and another .. Respondents Shri Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners impugn the order passed by the Commissioner dismissing the revision and confirming the orders passed by the authorities below. The petitioners had moved the authorities for cancellation of mutation entries effected in favour of present respondents. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the objection raised by the present petitioners against which the respondents approached the Additional Collector, who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer. Against the said order the petitioners preferred revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the revision. 2 wp 6859.11 Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for petitioners vehemently contends that there was partition amongst members of the family and the husband of the petitioner No. 1 who was allotted 1H 91R of the land. The learned counsel further contends that the respondents have illegally got their names mutated. The said mutation cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The partition deed is registered. According to the learned counsel mutation entry No. 327 is also effected on the basis of the same. The land gat No. 479/1 came to the share of husband of the petitioner No. 1 i. e. Damu Sakaram Koli and petitioners being legal heirs of Damu are entitled to get their names mutated. All these aspects have not been considered by the authorities while negativing the case of the petitioners. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 use to remain under the influence of liquor and at that time the property was transferred in the name of Ramchandra showing Kamalbai as guardian. All these acts are illegal on the part of the respondents. The learned counsel contends that the provisions of Sec. 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code were not followed while mutating the names. 3 wp 6859.11 3. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the orders. The petitioners could not place on record the said alleged partition deed to substantiate their contention. Damu died in the year 1996. It is observed that the deceased had himself transferred the land in the name of his nephew Ramchandra. 4. It is admitted fact that no civil proceedings have been filed. The decision of the Civil Court is binding on the revenue authorities. In the present matter I do not find any error committed by the authorities while passing the impugned order. 5. If the petitioners establish their right in the Civil Court, then they are at liberty to move the revenue authorities. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11