1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8732 OF 2009 Manjulabai w/o Shivram Chilagar .. PETITIONER VERSUS Jamla s/o Ramsingh Chavan .. RESPONDENT Mr. P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 29th MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent though served. 2 Orders passed by the revenue authority in respect of recording of names in revenue record are subject matter of challenge in this petition. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects of the matter. Suffice is to note that the suit presented by the petitioner herein against the respondent claiming declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction came to be decreed after proper contest by the Civil Judge, J.D. Hingoli on 23-8-2001. Petitioner herein is declared as owner of the disputed property admeasuring 2 7 acres 13 gunthas i.e. 3H 10 R out of gat no. 8 situate at village Wadchuna, tq. Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was subjected to challenge by the defendants before the first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal no. 67/2001 which has been dismissed by the District Judge -1, Hingoli on 7-9-2007 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in favour of the petitioner has been confirmed. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of recording of revenue entries in cultivation column in the name of the respondent. Appeal presented to the additional Collector raising challenge to the order in respect of recording of name issued by the Tahsildar has been turned down by the Additional Collector, Hingoli on 17-1-2003. Order passed by the Additional Collector appears to have been maintained by the revisional authority i.e. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3 Revenue entries are not the sole evidence of ownership or entitlement of the parties to the property. It is well established that the revenue entries are recorded for fiscal purpose. The revenue officials have to correct the record in accordance with the determination of right by the competent civil court. In the instant matter, as stated by the petitioner, suit claiming decree 3 of perpetual injunction as well as declaration of ownership presented by the petitioner / original plaintiff has been decreed in his favour and the judgment delivered by the trial court has been confirmed by the first appellate court. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the revenue officials pointing out the decision rendered by the civi court. In these circumstances, the petitioner shall tender appropriate application to the revenue authority along with the copy of the judgment by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. The revenue officials on receipt of the application shall correct the entires in consonance with the determination of rights by the civil court. In view of the directions referred above, no further order needs to be passed in the instant petition. Revenue officials are directed to correct the record in consonance with the decision rendered by the civil court. Orders passed by the appellate authorities i.e. Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner will not be an impediment in effecting such corrections. Petition stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8732.09.odt