1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6638 OF 2004. Ananda S/o Sitaram Badhe, Age 80 years, Occ.Nil, R/o Ruikheda, Tq.Mutainagar, Dist. Jalgaon Khandesh. through Power of Attorney Supdu S/o Anand Badhe and another ... Petitioners. Versus Kashinath S/o Wevu Bonde, deceased through L.Rs. 1A. Sow.Janabai W/o Kashinath Bonde and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.Vivek Dhage, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P.for the State. Mr.V.B.Patil, advocate for Respondent Nos.1A,1C to 1F. Respondent Nos.1B and 2 to 4 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2 2. The petitioner claims to be owner of the house property bearing CTS No.234, situated at village Ruikheda under Muktainagar Tahsil. His name appeared in the concerned record as a purchaser of the said property. His case was that on 22.10.1970, he purchased the house property from deceased Wedu Sitaram Bonde. The entry of his name was taken in by the concerned City Survey Officer on the basis of the entries in the village Panchayat record during 1984. The deceased Respondent No.1 challenged the said entry by filing an application/appeal U/s 247 of the MLR Code. He asserted that his father Wedu had purchased the house property by virtue of a sale deed dated 29.11.1950. He further asserted that his father Wedu died on 18.1.1969 and he is the only successor left by the deceased father. He contended that the petitioner manipulated false entries in the concerned CTS record alleging oral sale pertaining to the period when his father was not alive at all. Consequently, he urged to delete entry in the name of the petitioner and to enter his name in the CTS record. His application/appeal was allowed by 3 the learned Superintendent of Land Records. The petitioner preferred a Revision/appeal No. 185/2004 which came to be dismissed by the Director of Land Records. 3. Mr.Dhage, strenuously contended that the appeal/application of the deceased Respondent ought not to have been entertained because it was filed after long period of about more than 15 years. He would submit that both the authorities committed perversity in deleting name of the petitioner and considering the request of the deceased Respondent. 4. Mr.Dhage, further submits that father of the deceased Respondent No.1, namely, Wedu Bonde was alive at the material time of the alleged oral sale and false record has been prepared regarding the death of said Wedu. He would submit that on the basis of incorrect record, the authorities were impressed to take wrong decision. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that 4 the house property in question is in possession of the petitioner who is liable to pay the property tax. Such an entry does not make or unmake title. The petitioner would be at liberty to agitate the question of title in Civil Court. The question whether he orally purchased the house property and whether his vendor was alive at the material time are disputed questions of fact. The Apex Court in "Food Corporation of India and another Vs. Pala Ram and others" (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 32, has laid down that disputed questions of facts can not be considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Though, there was delay in filing of the application/appeal, yet, it was apparently explained by the deceased Respondent and moreover, on such a ground the petition need not be entertained when the question of title can be agitated before the appropriate forum. Thus, in view of availability of alternate remedy and in view of involvement of disputed questions of facts, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/wp663804 5