1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3418 OF 2009 L.A.Belur .. Petitioner Vs The Deputy Director of Lands Records & ors .. Respondents Mr H.S.Shreepad Murthy, for the petitioner. Mrs Lata B Patne, AGP, for respondent nos 1 to 3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 24/11/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition arises from the orders passed by the revenue authorities in RTS proceedings. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of registered Deed of Conveyance dated 12.8.2002 executed in his favour by C.S.Seetalaxmi and Smt Yeshodha Sitaram. It appears that in the course of hearing before the authorities below, an objection was raised by respondent no.4 on behalf of one smt Sukhali Bablya Dukhali alias Yashoda Sitaram Dhangar alias Yashoda Sitaram. This lady also claims to be the owner of the property T 2 and she alleges that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is bogus. It appears that she was party to the proceedings before all the authorities below along with Baburao Ramji Shivarkar. Baburao Shivarkar is added as respondent no. 4 in the petition for self and as a Constituted Attorney of Sukhali Bablya Dukhali alias Yashoda Sitaram Dhangar alias Yashoda Sitaram. However, she is not added as respondent in the petition. When I asked Mr.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether he would like to add her as party respondent to the petition, he said it is not necessary since respondent no.4 is there on record, who claims to be her Constituted Attorney. It is on this ground alone, in my opinion, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. I have perused the orders passed by the authorities below which have rejected the application filed by the petitioner for entering his name on the basis of the registered sale deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a document is registered, it is obligatory on the part of revenue authorities to take entry in the public record as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in Shamrao Ganpat Chintamani Vs Kakasaheb Laxman Gorde, 2008 (2) Mh L J 819, Shrikant R Sankanwar and others 3 Vs Krishna Balu Naukudkar, 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 276 and the order passed in Yovraj Randive and ors Vs. Nutan Kamble and Ors, date 16.1.09 in Writ Petition No.917 of 2009. I have perused these judgments and, in my opinion, they do not have application to the facts of the present case. Here two ladies claim to be the owners of the property, namely Yashoda Sitaram and Sukhali Bablya alias Yashoda Sitaram Dhangar alias Yashoda Sitaram. Yashoda Sitaram has executed the Deed of Conveyance dated 12.8.2002 in favour of the petitioner along with Seetalaxmi. All the three authorities, after having appreciated the material on record have held that the dispute regarding ownership can be adjudicated only by the competent civil court. In this view of the matter and considering that there are concurrent findings recorded by all the authorities below and that I find there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the findings of fact, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of this petition shall not preclude either the petitioner or any other party to the proceedings to institute suit for appropriate reliefs. If such a suit is instituted, it is open to the parties to approach revenue authorities afresh for effecting 4 necessary changes in the record of rights after the suit is finally decided. The Civil Court shall deal with the suit, if instituted, and decide it on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made by the revenue authorities in these proceedings. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)