9-wp-1126-5516-11.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1126 OF 2011 Rekha S.More and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri. Shankar Nama Karale and Anrs. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5516 OF 2011 Chandrakant V.Kodilkar and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri. Shankar Nama Karale and Anrs. ..Respondents Mrs. Preeti B.Walimbe advocate for petitioners in both the petitions. Ms. Prabha Badadare advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 6 in both the petitions. Mr. R.M.Patne AGP for respondent no.15 in both the petitions. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard both sides. Perused the orders which have been made by the Minister for Revenue, Government of 1 9-wp-1126-5516-11.doc Maharashtra dated 4th November, 2010 and that of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division dated 5th February, 2010 so also the initial order which has been made on 25th June, 2009 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Appeals) Thane. 2. From a perusal of the same, it appears that ultimately the parties are locked in a civil suit over the right, title and interest in the immovable properties. There are suits, both by respondent nos.1 to 6 to which the petitioners are impleaded as parties. There is also a civil suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Kalyan which is filed by M/s. Panchala Builders and Developers being Special Civil Suit No. 443 of 2010 and the petitioners have been impleaded as parties therein. 3. In the light of the same, both sides agree that no useful purpose will be served by appearing before the Sub- Divisional Officer and facing inquiry in relation to proceedings concerning the mutation entries and the correction of revenue records. Once the civil suits are pending between the parties, then, the authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 would have to abide by the clarification by the competent Court. The only competent Court is the Civil Court in this case. The parties 2 9-wp-1126-5516-11.doc are already before the said Court. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Minister dated 4th November, 2010 is set aside. The Sub-Divisional Officer need not conduct inquiry as directed in the said order. However, this order is passed without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions in so far as the maintainability and merits of the pending dispute. Keeping the open said contentions, this writ petitions are allowed by quashing and setting aside the order of the Minister for Revenue. It is, therefore, clear that revenue authorities need not proceed in this case but should await the outcome of the proceedings before the Civil Court. 4. Both the petitions are disposed of. [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] 3