1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7735 OF 2009 Belaappa s/o Laxmanappa Akhade, age: 61 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Walsangvi, Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna. Petitioner Versus Sadashivappa s/o Dhonduappa Akhade, age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Walsangvi, Tq. Bhokardan, District Jalna. Respondent Mr. B.R.Sontakke Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.Surekha G. Chincholkar, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 24 rd August, 2010. P.C.: 1 The order passed by Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on 19.03.2009, dismissing the Revision Application tendered by the petitioner, is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 The Additional Commissioner, while passing the impugned order, has directed the parties to abide by the decision 2 in Regular Civil Appeal No.73/2007. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for rendering decision afresh in accordance with law. Thus, civil proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent / original plaintiff are yet pending. 3 It is well established that revenue entries are recorded for fiscal purposes and are not in itself the evidence of title or entitlement of the parties in relation to the property. The issue as regards right, title and entitlement in relation to the property is required to be determined in civil proceedings, which are admittedly pending in the trial Court. The revenue entries, those are recorded shall, obviously, be subject to final outcome of the civil proceedings. The order passed by the Revisional Court i.e. Additional Commissioner merely emphasises this principle. 4 No interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance. 5 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp773509