1 WP2348/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2348 OF 2010 Ramkrishna s/o Baburao Shinde, Aged 38 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Kamathi, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar Petitioner V E R S U S 1 The Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. Respondents 2 The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar 3 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Karjat, District Ahmednagar 4 Malhari Baburao Raigude, Aged 59 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Tarad-gavhan, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar 5 Dnyandeo Baburao Rajgude, Aged 53 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of as above. Mr N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr.L.H. Kawale, Advocate, holding for Respondent No. 4 served, but absent Mr. P.M. Bidada, Advocate for respondent No.5 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5th April, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition is challenging the concurrent orders passed by the revenue authorities directing cancellation of mutation entry No. 1270 in respect of land Gat No. 159 of Tarad-gavhan, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. Land Gat No. 159 admeasures about 4 H 62 R. Pursuant to 2 WP2348/10 a decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 269 of 1979, one Jijabai secured a decree of partition of this land to the extent of her half share. Thereafter, Jijabai admittedly sold her share of the suit land to one Rohidas, and thereafter, the present petitioner purchased the same from Rohidas vide a sale deed dated 10th August, 2001. Soon after the registration of the sale deed, under the provisions of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the impugned mutation entry was effected. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 challenged the said entry. Their case was as under : That their father Baburao was owner of entire land gat No. 159 and that their father’s aunt Jijabai had no concern with the land. They are in possession of the entire land though Jijabai had obtained a decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 269 of 1979. Pursuant to this case, they filed Regular Civil Suit No. 263 of 2001 against the present petitioner and his predecessors-in-title. The present petitioner asserted that his predecessor Jijabai had right and title to the suit land. He further mentioned that Jijabai was in possession of eastern half portion of the Gat and the same is now in his possession since 2001. 3. The Civil Court accepted the case of the petitioner that Jijabai had valid title to half portion of the suit land, but the Court clearly held that Jijabai was not in possession of her share of the suit land. The Civil Court thus negated the case of the petitioner that he was put in possession of the land in question by his vendor in 2001. The Civil Court partly decreed the suit and issued perpetual injunction against the petitioner preventing him from disturbing respondent Nos. 4 and 5’s possession of the suit land without following due process of Law. 4. Both the parties, it seems, went in appeal against the Judgment and order in Regular Civil Suit No. 263 of 2001 and the same is pending before 3 WP2348/10 the learned District Judge, Ahmednagar. 5. In this background, it is clear that the mutation that was effected in 2001, did and would not really hurt respondent Nos. 4 and 5. This mutation only records the ownership and has no concern about possession. As said above, the question of his possession is still pending before the Civil Court and pending such litigation the mutation entry should not have been disturbed. The impugned mutation entry shall stand restored. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. In view of this, writ petition stands allowed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/2348/10/5/4/11/ok