1 SSK/20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8027 OF 2008 India Gypsum Limited ....Petitioners Versus Irfan Alamgir Mulla & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. V. A. Thorat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. R. A. Thorat i/b. Mr.Devendra Udani, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni i/b. Mr. M. T. Narvekar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 8 & 9. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 10 to 13. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 8TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Thorat and Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The dispute is about Gut No.303 admeasuring 1 hectre and 25 gunthas. It is the case of the Petitioners that this gut was allotted in favour of Respondent No.7 on 1st March, 1982 in consolidation scheme and thereafter, mutation entry nos. 695 and 696 were effected. The Petitioners purchased the said land from Respondent No.7 on 28th November, 2003 and thereafter erected a factory building. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, 2 however, after lapse of a period of 22 years challenged the above mutation entries on 29th September, 2004 by filing an appeal before Respondent No.10 and Respondent No.10 set-aside this mutation entries and directed that the names of Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 should be shown in part of the suit property. This order of Respondent No.10 was further confirmed by a higher authority and therefore, the present petition. 3. A common statement is made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that the Petitioners have filed a Civil Suit in respect of the suit property claiming injunction against Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and same is pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Wada. It is now a settled position of law that mutation entry does not create or extinguish rights of the party and the same is recorded only for fiscal purposes. The parties are always at liberty to approach the Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated. A reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Balwant Singh & Another V/s. Daulat Singh reported in 1997(7) SCC 137. 4. In these circumstances and especially in view of the fact that already civil suit filed by the Petitioners is pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division Wada, I deem it fit to dispose of the petition, by passing the following order : 3 1. The parties to the petition are at liberty to agitate their grievance before the Civil Court as the civil suit filed by the Petitioners is already pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division Wada. 2. The Civil Judge Junior Division Wada shall dispose of the Petitioners’ Civil Suit No.50 of 2007 independently on its on merits and without being influenced by the observations made by the Respondent No.10 and Respondent No.11 in the Orders dated 29th January,2007 and 30th May, 2008 respectively. 3. Parties shall maintain status-quo as of today for a period of four weeks from today. Order accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.)