1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2058 OF 2009 1] Smt.Shantabai Jagannath Patil Age 80 years, Occ-Nil R/o Tamaswadi, Tq. & Dist.Dhule 2] Smt.Ashabai @ Bhagirathibai Bhaidas Patil Age 50 years, Occ-Nil, R/o Plot No.4, Sanali Building Anandnagar, Deopur, Dhule 3] Shri Satish S/o Jagannath Patil Age 45 years, Occ-Agril R/o At Tamaswadi, Post.Nyaholad Tq. & Dist.Dhule .. PETITIONERS Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Department of Revenue & Forest Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 [Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad] 2 2] The Additional Commissioner(Revenue) Nashik Division, Nashik. 3] The Additional Collector, Dhule Dist.Dhule 4] The Sub Divisional Officer Dhule, Tq. & Dist.Dhule 5] The Tahsildar Dhule, Tq. & Dist.Dhule 6] Suresh S/o Digambar Patil Age 50 years, Occ-Agril, R/o Anand Nagar,Plot no.6, Devpur, Tq. & Dist.Dhule. .. RESPONDENTS .... Ms.Surekha Mahajan ,Adv.for petitioners. Shri K.M.Suryawanshi,Asstt Govt.Pleader for Respondents 1 to 5. Shri Amol Sawant,Adv.for R.6. .... CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 11th JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] This petition challenges the order dated 12/1/2009 passed in R.T.S.Revision No.230/2007 by respondent no.2 the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Nashik Division, 3 Nashik, confirming orders passed by the authorities below. The dispute relates to the mutation entries in the revenue record. 2] The notice in this matter was issued on 9/4/2009 and interim relief was granted staying the effect, operation and execution of the said order. In response to the notice, Shri Amol Sawant, learned counsel appears for respondent no.6 and Shri K.M.Suryawanshi, AGP appears for respondents 1 to 5. The learned counsels for the parties agree that the matter can be finally disposed of at the admission stage. Hence Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsels for respective parties waive service of notice. Petition is heard by consent of parties finally. 3] The learned Additional Collector, Dhule by his order dated 11/6/2007 has held that the mutation entries made in the revenue records are based upon the decision of the Civil Court. It is not in dispute that Special Civil Suit No.84/99 has been filed by present petitioners no.1 and 3 in respect of property which is in dispute. Similarly, Regular Civil Suit No.75/2004 has been filed by respondent no.6 in respect of the same property. In response to the notice of this petition, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 and in paragraphs no.7 and 8, it is stated as under : “7] I say and submit that as it is contention of the petitioner stating that 4 there are two orders in the same property is totally incorrect. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik in the order it is directed to right the name of Suresh Digambar Patil in the other rights coloum and that is to only till finalization of the Civil suit in respect of will deed. It is purely a temporary arrangement till to the decision of the Civil Court, therefore, contention of the petitioner is totally incorrect. Right of Suresh is in respect of rights confirmed on the basis of will which is pending before the Civil Court, therefore, there is no comments by any authority at t his stage. Therefore, the name of Suresh Digambar Patil was included in the other rights column and not in the owners column. 8] I say and submit that, if order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is perused it can be seen that the name of the respondent no.6 is to be taken in other rights column of 7/12 extract subject to the decision of the civil Court proceedings and so far as order passed by the Tahsildar in RTS No.15/2001 in inquiry is directed about legal heirs of deceased Bhaidas Harchand Patil. The respondent no.6 is claiming right on the basis of sale deed by Shri Bhaidas Harchand Patil. The title in regard to right of ownership are eligibility and entitlement. To claim property as legal heirs is to be determined by the Civil Court. Therefore, order is passed protecting the right of the parties to the proceedings till decision of the civil Court. The petitioners have raised points in regard to enter say claims over the ancestral property which are to be decided and determined by the Civil Court. 5 Therefore, order passed in revision application will not be interfered.” 4] In view of the aforesaid stand taken by respondents no.1 to 5, it is apparent that the entries in the revenue record do not confer any title or rights upon the parties and such entries are merely by way of interim arrangement subject to the decision of Special Civil Suit No.84/1999 and Regular Civil Suit no. 75/2004, which are pending in Civil Court. Since no legal rights of the parties are affected, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The Petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order if any passed shall stand automatically vacated. [R.K. DESHPANDE, J.] umg/wp2058-09