1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7505 OF 2007 Sou. Sunanda Bhikaji Walhekar and another ....Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. Shri.A.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri.R.K. Temkar, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 7 to 9, 13 & 17. CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Certain agricultural lands were allotted to freedom fighters and military service personnel. The conditions of allotment were allegedly breached by the allottees. Consequently, the lands were resumed by the Government. The petitioners claim to be owner of the adjacent land containing a well therein. They are beneficiaries of the allotment of the land being legal heirs of the freedom fighters viz. Dagdu Rode. The 2 respondent Nos. 6 to 18 are either allottees or legal representatives of the allottees. The dispute pertained to mutation entry which was recorded vide M.E.No. 6810 in the revenue record. Some of the respondents preferred an appeal against the M.E.No. 6810 whereby the mutation entry was recorded to show that the lands in question were resumed by the Government on account of breach of the conditions of allotment. By the impugned order rendered on 14.8.2007 the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur allowed the R.T.S. Appeal No. 34/2007 and directed that the revenue entry be restored by cancellation of the M.E.No. 6810. 3. The petitioners were not parties to the proceedings of M.E.No. 6810 or the appeal bearing R.T.S.No. 34/2007. They are third parties qua the M.E.No. 6810. They filed review application against the order of cancellation of M.E.No. 6810 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur. Their review petition came to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Godhamgaonkar submits that petitioners have locus standi to prefer this petition inasmuch as their land is situated adjoining to the lands which are already resumed and taken over by the Government. He would submit that the adjacent allottees have started obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment of the water of the well situated in the land of the petitioners. It appears that already a civil dispute is pending between the parties. The petitioners are at liberty to reagitate in the Civil Court and are also at liberty to file counter-claim, if any. The mutation entries are 3 only for fiscal purpose. It is well settled that the mutation entry does not create or destroy any right. As such, the petitioners are also at liberty to take appropriate steps to intervene in the revision petition which is pending in respect of the claim pertaining to resumption of the land of the allottees who have purportedly committed breach of condition. The petitioners cannot, however, be permitted to indulge in dispute regarding the mutation entry No. 6810 with which they have no concern. Neither their rights are violated due to cancellation of mutation entry No. 6810 nor they can be regarded as an aggrieved persons in view of the remote concern shown by them in respect of right to draw well water. The petitioners cannot, therefore, be permitted to challenge the impugned judgment with which they have no concern. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed with liberty to agitate all the questions before appropriate forum as would be permissible under the law. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. ] ssc/wp7505.07