1 W.P.No.3766/93 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3766 OF 1993. 1. Smt.Asma Hussain (Padmabai), w/o Iqbal Hussain, Aged 51 years, Occ. Household, R/o Purna, Taluka Purna, Dist.Parbhani. 2. Ajmal Hussain S/o Iqbal Hussain, Aged 26 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Purna, Taluka Purna, Dist. Parbhani. 3. Salmabanu W/o Abdul Latif, Aged 26 years, Occ.Household, R/o Purna, Taluka Purna, Dist. Parbhani. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. The Additional Collector, Parbhani. 4. The Deputy Collector, Sailu, Dist.Parbhani. 5. The Tahsildar, Purna, Taluka Purna, Dist.Parbhani. 2 W.P.No.3766/93 6. Syed Ahmed Hussain S/o Syed Ali Hussain, Aged 52 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Purna, Taluka Purna, Dist.Parbhani. 7. Syed Kamal Ahmed Syed Ali Hussain, since deceased through L.Rs. 7-A) Shaikh Moin Shaikh Ismail, Age 50 years, Occ.Agri. and Business, R/o Mahavir Nagar, Purna, Tq.Purna, Dist. Parbhani. 7-B) Badrunnisa Begum Shaikh Moin, Age 42 years, Occ. Household and Agri., R/o Mahavir Nagar, Purna, Tq. Purna, Dist.Parbhani. ... Respondents. ... Mr. S.S.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.R.J.Godbole, advocate for Respondent No.6. Mr.A.H.Kasliwal, advocate for Respondent No.7. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.07.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 3 W.P.No.3766/93 2. The proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for entering the name in the record of right as legal heir of deceased Iqbal Hussain were initiated by the present petitioners as well as the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in respect of the Writ properties. The Tahsildar vide its order dated 4.11.1991 directed the names of present Respondent Nos.6 and 7 to be entered in the relevant record of rights. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed appeal before the Dy. Collector who allowed the appeal. Against the said judgment of the Dy. Collector, Parbhani, the Respondents preferred Appeal before the Collector, Parbhani. The said Appeal was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Revision before the Commissioner. The Addl. Commissioner dismissed the Revision. The petitioners have assailed the same in the present Writ Petition. 3. The proceedings before the Civil Court were also initiated by the present petitioners and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 by filing independent suits, seeking relief of declaration regarding 4 W.P.No.3766/93 the status of petitioner No.1 as the wife of deceased Iqbal Hussain and other consequential reliefs. The suit filed by the present Respondent Nos.6 and 7 was decreed and the one filed by the present petitioners was dismissed. The appeals were preferred by the petitioners before the District Court which were dismissed. Against that the petitioners filed Second Appeals before this Court. This Court also dismissed the Second Appeals. According to Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have preferred Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the same is pending. 4. It is a trite law that findings of the Civil Court are binding before the authorities exercising the powers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Civil Court has given a specific finding about the rights of the present Respondent Nos.6 and 7 qua deceased Iqbal Hussain and also holding that the petitioners can not claim any right or status qua Iqbal Hussain. 5. In light of the findings of the Civil 5 W.P.No.3766/93 Court, the findings of the Addl.Commissioner impugned in the present petition can not be faulted with. 6. In view of the dictum of the Civil Court, the petitioners can not claim any right, title or interest in respect of the writ properties. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel states that the Special Leave Petition is pending before the Apex Court. In case, the Apex Court reverses the judgment of the High Court delivered in the Second Appeal, the petitioners would have an independent right and cause of action to move before the Revenue authorities. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp376693 6 W.P.No.3766/93