1 WP 10445.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10445 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. J.C.Badve ,Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 1 to 3. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 06/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Mr. Badve, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the Commissioner should not have remanded the matter when the Judgments were passed by all the authorities in favour of the petitioner taking into consideration the Judgments of the Civil Court, the Civil Court had decreed the Suit of the plaintiff by virtue of which an injunction was clamped against the respondent from interfering in the possession of the petitioner. The matter is taken up to the High Court in Second Appeal, wherein the High Court 2 WP 10445.2010 has also not granted relief in respect of the injunction clamped against the respondent. The learned counsel further contends that the Commissioner should have considered this aspect and dismissed the Revision. The Judgment of the Civil Court is binding on the revenue authority. According to the learned counsel, even the Talathi has incorporated an entry in 7/12 extract that the matter is subjudiced, which is illegal. 3. The proposition that the Civil Court’s Judgment and findings are binding on the revenue authorities does not require any debate and that is the settled position. It can not be presumed that the authorities would not take into consideration the orders passed by the Civil Court from time to time. The matter has been remitted back by the Commissioner to the Tahsildar taking into consideration that the Tahsildar had not given any notice to the revision petitioner and he did not get any opportunity to file his Say before entering the name of the present petitioner in the record of right. 4. With a view to give opportunity and to observe the principles of natural justice, the matter has been remitted back. The Tahsildar, to whom the matter has been remitted, is bound to take into 3 WP 10445.2010 consideration all the relevant aspects such as the orders passed by the Civil Court from time to time and the Say filed by the respondent. No prejudice would be caused by the order of remand passed by the Commissioner to the Tahsildar. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 10445.2010