1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1333 OF 2005. Sonyabai W/o Mukund Chavan ... Petitioner. Versus Damodhar S/o Ramrao Kale and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.Milind Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.A.Dhengle, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 14.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the orders rendered by the Revenue Authorities regarding mutation entry No.1054 sanctioned by the Tahsildar, Udgir, by his order dated 18th 2 September 2000, which came to be confirmed by the further orders of the Appellate Authority and lastly by order rendered by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in proceedings No.2002/ROR/Rev/Pt/11. The claim of the petitioner is that her father was declared statutory owner of the land bearing S.No.112 admeasuring 27 acres 22 gunthas situated at village Halli, under Udgir Tahsil. The petitioner filed Civil suit (RCS No.162/1983) for declaration of ownership and injunction. The suit came to be decreed. The first appellate Court partly allowed appeal (RCA No.323/1992) and held that part of the injunction decree to the extent of western half portion was improper. Thereafter, the Respondents initiated mutation proceedings which have been sanctioned. It is not in dispute that Second Appeal is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of the first appellate Court and the same is pending before this Court. So far as mutation entry is concerned, there are concurrent findings of the three Revenue Authorities. It is well settled that mutation entry does not create any right as 3 such and is of hardly any help to either party in so far as question of ownership is concerned. The mutation entries are meant for fiscal purposes. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to interfere with the three concurrent findings of the Revenue Authorities which are based on material. Still, however, it may be clarified that the mutation entry in question is not to be treated as final and will be subject to the further decision in the Second Appeal which is pending between the parties and moreover, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps to seek remedy for recovery of possession of the western portion if she is not in possession thereof. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp133305