(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1106 OF 2011 1. Nilkanth s/o. Tukaram Dhotre, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Signal Camp Sut Mill Road, Taluka and District : Latur. 2. Laxmi w/o. Nilkanth Dhotre, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Signal Camp Sut Mill Road, Taluka and District : Latur. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Additional Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. (2) 5. Shri Sunil Yadav, Presently serving as Sub-Divisional Officer, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. 6. The Tahsildar, Omerga, Taluka : Omerga, District : Osmanabad. 7. Kalpana w/o. Bhanudas Dhotre, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Signal Camp, Sut Mill Road, Latur, Taluka and Dist. Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6. Mr. N.K. Kakade, Advocate, with Mr. P.S. Chavan, Advocate, for respondent no.7 / caveator. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, for the petitioners; (3) learned AGP Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, for respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6, and Adv. Mr. N.K. Kakade with Adv. Mr. P.S. Chavan, for respondent no.7 / caveator. 2. The dispute is in relation to mutation entry No. 2965 which is in respect of land Gut No. 104/1, situated at Omerga (District : Osmanabad). 3. The orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, the Additional Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer, upsetting that mutation entry are against the present petitioners. 4. Contention of the present petitioners is, the deletion of name of the petitioners was sought almost after 5 years and delay came to be condoned as also proceedings were decided on merit by the Sub-Divisional Officer without taking precaution to serve notice thereof. According to Adv. Mr. Irpatgire, for the petitioners, though the contention in this respect was specifically raised in appeal, the authorities have overlooked this position. He invites attention to the judgment delivered by Civil Court on 30th August 2010, to show that question about validity or otherwise of partition deed dated 19-6-2000 was very much raised in Regular Civil Suit No. 87/2008 and though present respondent no.7 was party thereto, she did not appear and make (4) any grievance about its invalidity or being forged. The grievance has been made for the first time here. 5. Learned AGP Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, for respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6, supports the impugned orders. Adv. Mr. N.K. Kakade, for respondent no.7, is also supporting the impugned orders. According to him, notices were sent by RPAD and as there was no response, a paper publication was also ordered and as petitioners did not appear, thereafter impugned order came to be delivered. 6. Perusal of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer reveals that the delay was condoned on 8-3-2010. The order dated 8-3-2010 has been produced before this court today and it shows that notices were twice forwarded by RPAD to petitioners and they did not appear. After the delay came to be condoned, notice was then published in newspaper and matter was fixed on 17-3-2010. The newspaper publication dated 17-3-2010 is also produced today and it mentions the subject matter of the grievance with next date as 29-3-2010. 7. Contention before this court is, RPAD notices were not received by the petitioners and newspaper publication is not in local newspaper where the petitioners use to reside, namely, (5) Latur. Perusal of appeal memo filed by the petitioners before District Collector does not show a ground specifically on these lines raised before that authority. The Additional Collector has made some observations about this in his order dated 28-6-2010. That order was then impugned in revision before Additional Commissioner by the petitioners. In that revision again, no specific ground in this respect is raised by the petitioners. 8. In this view of the matter, it is difficult for this court for the first time to accept that alleged two notices sent by RPAD were not tendered to petitioners or then the hearing was not notified through newspaper. 9. The subject matter is only mutation entry. The entry is only for fiscal purposes. Civil rights of the parties are not affected thereby. The petitioners can very well file appropriate civil proceedings for ventilating their grievance and raise all appropriate defences or then point out alleged procedural lacunae in the matter while defending their title to Gut No. 104/1. The adverse findings recorded by the revenue authorities cannot come in their way while availing such remedy. 10. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. (6) 11. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1106