1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITON NO. 4823 OF 2009 Gulabchand s/o. Chandulal Bafna and others. .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala,Advocate for the petitoner. Mr.A.V. Patil, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 7 to 12. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 5th December, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] The present petition arises out of the proceedings initiated at the request of the present respondent NO.6, regarding entries in the revenue records. The Additional Commissioner, whose order has been impugned in 2 the present petition, has basically allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondents ( Nos. 7 to 12) on the ground that the dispute is purely of civil nature and it is in the interest of justice that parties get their rights adjudicated before the competent civil court and whatever is the outcome or decision of the civil court may be, would be implemented by the revenue authorities. 2] Shri A.V. Patil, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that in view of the interim orders passed by this court, it is apprehended that in the proceedings to be initiated by the contesting respondents for cancellation of sale deed, the rights of the contesting respondents would be prejudiced. 3] On the contrary, Shri Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though vide order passed by the revenue authorities, the names of the contesting respondents have not been permitted to mutated, illegally their names have been mutated and on the basis of this illegal mutation, the contesting respondents are trying to alienate the property. It is a settled law that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title of the property. It is only the competent civil court and in the facts of the present case, the competent authority, who is empowered under the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, would be entitled to decide the question as to whether the petitioners or the contesting respondents have valid title over the land in question or as to whether the sale deeds on which the petitioners rely, are legal or not. 3 4] In that view of the matter, I find that the interest of justice would be met by disposing off the petition , with the following observations :- (A) It is made clear that the status-quo , as on the date of filing the petition in so far as the revenue entries are concerned, shall be maintained by the parties. The entries shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the competent civil court or the competent authority under Section 50B of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. (B) It is further directed that till the decision of the civil court or the competent authority under Section 50B, neither of the parties shall alienate, transfer or create any third party interest in the land in question. Rule made absolute in above terms. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-