(1) WP3479-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3479 OF 2010 Shaikh Usman s/o Shaikh Azim PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. M.S. Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 9th JUNE, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. By this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs : "(B) To direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to inquire into the matter of Mutation Entry No. 970 passed by respondent No. 3 (if any). (C) To direct the respondent No. 2 to delete the names of respondent No. 4 to 6 from the Revenue Record of Gut No. 430, 583, 586 and 854 of village Bidkin, Tq. Paithan (2) WP3479-10 and the same be restored in the name of petitioner as before. (D) The respondent No. 4 to 6 may kindly be restrained from interfering and obstructing in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land Gut No. 430, 583, 586 and 854 of village Bidkin, Tq. Paithan and also restrained from creating any third party interest therein. (E) In alternative the respondent No. 2 and 3 may kindly be directed to dispose of the notice of the petitioner dated 25.11.2009 as expeditiously as possible." 2. At the first instance, we inquired with the learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner, whether the petitioner who is aggrieved by Mutation Entry No. 970 had applied for the issuance of a certified copy of the Mutation Entry. He was unable to tell us whether, in fact, such an application has been made. There are no pleadings in the petition indicating that such an application has, in fact, been made. The learned advocate, therefore, sought an adjournment to inquire whether such an application has been made. He then submitted that an application (3) WP3479-10 had been made under the Right to Information Act by the petitioner for issuance of the order. According to him, this application also has not been answered satisfactorily. He points out that the Tahsildar, Paithan directed the Information Officer i.e. the Circle Inspector, Bidkin to furnish the required information to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this has not been done. The learned advocate, therefore, submits that the petitioner has no alternative but to approach this Court. 3. We are not inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the Mutation Entry, there is an appeal provided under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for redressal of such grievance. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the information has not been supplied to him despite an application made under the Right to Information Act, there is an appeal provided under the Right to Information Act, which obviously the petitioner has not exhausted. (4) WP3479-10 4. In any event a photocopy of the abstract from the Mutation Register maintained by the Talathi, Bidkin, bearing M.E. No. 970 has been annexed to the affidavit filed by the State in reply to the petition. Apart from this, it appears that this is a personal dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 regarding a property which cannot be entertained in a writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] NPJ/wp3479-10