1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2555 OF 2010 Baby K. Shetty ....Petitioner Versus Vijay S. Mallya & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. B. G. Parmar i/b. Ms. Sandhya Mailagir for the Petitioner. Mr. R. S. Jaisinghani i/b. Ms. J. D’Silva for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : APRIL 6 , 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Petition pertains to recording of mutation entries. It is now settled position of law that the mutation entries neither create nor extinguish the rights of the person in the property. A reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Balwant Singh & Another V/s. Daulat Singh, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137. The parties are always at liberty to get adjudicate their rights including the title to 2 the property by approaching the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in writ petition in my jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Mr. Parmar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the Judgment of Single Judge in Savitri Chandrakesh Pal V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 406, to contend that the approach of the quasi judicial authority is not correct. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down by the learned Single Judge. However, in the present case, I am not inclined to interfere on the ground stated above. 4. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion regarding merit or title of the property and the same shall be adjudicated by the Court of the Competent Authority. (R. V. MORE, J.)