( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6450 OF 2007 Shri Vishwambhar s/o Keshavrao Deshmukh and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS Ramling s/o Bapu Mali Since deceased, through his L.Rs. 1-A) Smt. Padmin w/o Ramling Mali and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Bharaswadkar, advocate holding for Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), advocate for the petitioners. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petition is preferred against concurrent orders rendered by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kallam, the Additional Collector, Osmanabad and the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad regarding mutation of entries in the names of respondents. ( 2 ) 3. It appears that the Additional Collector, Osmanabad and the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad considered observations of this Court in second appeal No. 74/1987. The question whether the respondents’ predecessor i.e. Bapu Mali had surrendered his rights in respect of the claim of tenancy is a disputed question of fact. The writ petition cannot be entertained when the disputed question of fact is raised. Moreover, mere entry in the revenue record will not per se determine the legal rights of the parties. The petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate action before appropriate forum if they desire to challenge existence of tenancy rights of the respondents. 4. In view of the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities and in view of the fact that the disputed question of fact is involved in the petition, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP6450-07