1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5834 OF 2006. Udhav Balaji Ambade& Ano. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 22 APRIL, 2009. This Writ Petition has been filed by the original applicants before the Tahsildar who sought to set aside revenue entry made in the name of respondent No.3. It is alleged that respondent No.2 who did not have a right to sell the property had sold the property to respondent No. 3 and after the same 2 was effected, name of respondent No.3 has been recorded in the revenue record. Petitioner sought to challenge the decree. The said claim was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer who set aside that order and allowed the appeal. Revision was preferred before the Additional Collector. Additional Collector set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and confirmed the mutation entry. Being aggrieved by it the present petitioners have come in Writ Petition. 2. This Court in a decision reported in 2006(2) AIR Bombay Reported 320 (Smt. Archana S. Pashine & Ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Nagpur Division Nagpur & Ano.) held that since alternate remedy of civil suit is available the Writ Petition cannot be entertained. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that the petitioners have already filed civil suit at Chandrapur. In view of the fact that alternate remedy is already availed writ petition cannot be entertained. Rights of the parties can very well be decided in that suit. In 3 view of this writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE svk