SSK/ 1 WP.733.11. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 733 OF 2011 Motilal Ghanshyam Mathrani ....Petitioner Versus Geeta Ramsingh Pardeshi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. V. V. Pai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vineet Naik i/b. Ms. Manjiri S Parasnis for respondent no.1. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for respondent nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 18th APRIL, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Pai and Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner’s name was entered in the record of property in question on the basis of sale deed. The sale deed was executed on the strength of the power of attorney, which according to the respondent no.1 is a forged one. In these circumstances, the mutation entry in the name of the petitioner came to be cancelled. This order of the Lower Authority was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in revision. SSK/ 2 WP.733.11. 3. It is now a settled position of law that mutation entry does not create or extinguish rights of the parties 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 the present case both the petitioner and respondents have approached the Civil Court and filed a suit. Even criminal proceedings between the parties are pending. The civil dispute between the parties as regards the title of the suit property will be decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction on its own merits ignoring the decision of the Revenue Authority which is impugned in the present petition. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. 5. All the points and contentions of the respective parties are expressly kept open. (RANJIT MORE, J.)