( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5736 OF 1996 Govind Mahadu Nagime, .. Petitioner Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Mahalangra, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents 2. The Honourable Minister of State for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 4. Vithal Babarao Nagime, Age. Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Mahalangra, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. Shri A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. S.B. Wadmare, A.G.P. For respondent – State. Shri H.B. Nandagavale h/f. Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. ( 2 ) CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 23.07.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri A.N. Irpatgire for the petitioner, Mrs. S.B. Wadmare, A.G.P. for respondent – State and Shri H.B. Nandagavale h/f. Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Honourable Minister (Revenue) in Review Petition on 03.10.1994. Earlier the Honourable Minister had rejected the revision filed by the present petitioner against mutation entry. The litigation regarding mutation entry was taken up to the State Government. 3. Shri Irpatgire, Advocate for the petitioner makes statement that Regular Civil Suit No. 5 of 2002 is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4 who are real contesting parties. Thus, the rights of the parties would be decided in said Civil Suit. It is now well settled that mutation entries do not confer or create rights nor they ( 3 ) extinguish rights already vested in parties. Since the parties have already resorted to proper remedy under law for determining their rights over the disputed property, in my opinion, this writ petition cannot be entertained. 4. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. Rule discharged. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/wp5736.96