1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8290/2009. (Sayyad She s/o Sayyad Ahmad and Anr. Vs. Sayyad Rafi s/o Sayyad Ahemad and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.VD Sapkal, Advocate for petitioners; Mr.AD Kasliwal, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr. KS Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 30 th September, 2010. ... 1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2) The controversy between the parties revolve to effecting mutation entry by learned Tahsildar, Sillod dated 24.7.1998, incorporating name of respondent No.1 – Sayyad Rafi s/o Sayyad Ahemad in the revenue record concerning Survey Nos.310, 311, 277 of Sillod. 3) This order was taken by the petitioner before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sillod, who, in turn, on 13.08.2001, set aside the order of learned Tahsildar, Sillod. 4) Aggrieved respondent no.1 approached the Additional Collector and by order dated 8.10.2009, the learned Additional 2 Collector reversed the order, favour the respondent no.1. The said order of the learned Additional Collector was carried to the learned Commissioner in a revision and the learned Commissioner, Aurangabad, by order dated 29.05.2009 did not concede to the prayers of the petitioner and confirmed the order of Additional Collector, including the order of learned Tahsildar dated 23.7.1998. 5) The chequered history between the parties also needs little attention. Regular Civil Suit No.160/1999 was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 5.4.2003. Regular Civil Appeal No. 158/2003 was also rejected on 14.8.2007. Second Appeal No.1666/2005 moved by the respondent was rejected by this Court on 2nd April, 2009. All these proceedings apparently were for grant of injunction in favour of the petitioner, which has been confirmed. 6) In the proceedings, I find that the respondent has taken recourse by RCS No. 488/1996. However, he lost in the said suit. There is nothing before this Court to illustrate whether the respondent challenged the said order anywhere. 7) The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 canvassed that the respondent is son, born to Bismillahbi and the 3 petitioner born to Afsanbi w/o Ahemed, both wives of Sayyad Ahmed, who died in the year 1973. The controversy, as could be seen, revolves to the rights in the property referred herein above. The petitioners/original plaintiffs are in possession of the property, as stated earlier. The mutation entry, based on rights vested in Respondent No.1, being the legal representative and heir of Smt. Bismillahbi or for that purpose Shri Sayyad Ahmed, needs to be agitated by the respondent before appropriate civil court. For the present, the order of learned Tahsildar, effecting mutation by adding the name of respondent – Sayyad Rafi in the column of heirs of Afsanbi, being not warranted, as it was reversing position of 21.08.1989, effecting mutation in favour of the petitioner by the said competent authority, the learned Tahsildar. Therefore, there could not have been two orders by the learned Tahsildar and that too after a period of ten years. The proper forum for the respondent no.1 was to challenge the order dated 21.8.1989 and to get appropriate reliefs in tune and in time, which he has failed to do so. 8) The order under challenge of the revenue authorities, being rebelling the record, 4 will not be sustained, it is accordingly set aside to the extent as above. 9) The observations made in this order are restricted to the extent of present proceeding of writ petition and they need not be weighed at the time of adjudicating individual rights of the parties. 10)Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms as per prayer clause(B). No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/