*1* wp.5665.11.941.group.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5665 OF 2011 Shree Raj Properties and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- Prafulla Ranchoddas Parekh and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.V.P.Sawant with Mr.Vinay M. Bhate, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.G.Karandikar i/b Ramesh Gonsalves, for the Respondent No.1. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 09th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, has passed an order, during the course of the proceedings concerning the mutation entry, virtually adjudicating on rights of the parties in the immovable properties. It is stated that the Petitioners have executed a registered development agreement with the Respondents on 18.04.2002 whereunder the Respondents jointly assigned their development rights in the properties to the partners of M/s Shree Raj Properties (Petitioner No.1). It is stated that all Respondents are real brothers. The properties were bequeathed to them by their father (Ranchoddas Parekh) and as per the terms and conditions of the development agreement, entire sums have been paid by the Petitioners by cheques. After the payment and execution of the registered conveyance dated 03.10.2003, the Respondents approached the civil court for cancellation of the development agreement and filed Special Civil Suit No.1/2001. That suit is pending. The Respondent No.1 also filed *2* wp.5665.11.941.group.sxw RTS Appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhivandi challenging the Mutation Entry No.5126 of village Bolinj raising the contention that he has not received the consideration amount under the development agreement dated 18.04.2002 from his brothers i.e. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and therefore, the mutation entry be set aside. This appeal was dismissed on 22.03.2006. The Appeal therefrom was preferred before the Deputy Collector and he allowed the said appeal on 20.08.2008. Being aggrieved by that order, RTS Revision No.306/2008 was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who partly allowed it by order dated 08.04.2011 by holding that save and except the name of Prafulla Ranchoddas Parekh and his share, the said mutation entry stands. It is this order which is challenged in this petition. 2 I have heard Mr.Sawant, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr.Karandikar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No.1. With their assistance, I have perused the orders under challenge. To my mind, the Revisional Authority was fully aware of the fact that the said Prafulla has filed a civil suit which is pending. He was also aware of the fact that the dispute between the parties has arisen in relation to the development agreement. The dispute is that the development agreement and the terms and conditions thereof are not complied with allegedly by the Petitioners as alleged by the Respondent No.1. If that be the case, clearly such disputes are out of purview of the authorities/officers dealing with the matters pertaining to the mutation entries. Their powers are restricted. They cannot adjudicate on the right, title and interest of the parties in the immovable property. Once the competent court was seized of the matter and the civil suit is pending, then, it was not necessary for the Deputy Collector, so also, the Additional Commissioner to have interfered with the mutation entry. The *3* wp.5665.11.941.group.sxw mutation entry by itself will not prejudice the Respondent No.1 and particularly when he has filed a civil suit. Once the issue of right, title and interest of the parties in the immovable property and the disputes in relation to the development rights, are to be adjudicated by the competent civil court, then, the revenue authorities will have to abide by the said adjudication. At this stage, they cannot enter the arena either to assist the Respondent No.1 or deal with the respective contentions in relation to the dispute. The mutation entry, left as it is, does not prejudice the Respondent No.1. Keeping open all contentions and pleas in the pending suit and directing that the said adjudication will proceed irrespective of the orders passed by the revenue authorities, as also, by this Court, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Additional Commissioner is set aside and the revision application of the Petitioners is allowed. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 22.03.2006 (annexure-F to the Writ Petition) is restored. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) *4* wp.5665.11.941.group.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5669 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5685 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5686 OF 2011 Shree Raj Properties and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- Prafulla Ranchoddas Parekh and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.V.P.Sawant with Mr.Vinay M. Bhate, for the Petitioners in all petitions. Mr.S.G.Karandikar i/b Ramesh Gonsalves, for the Respondent No.1 in all petitions. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 09th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 For the reasons recorded in the order passed today in connected Writ Petition No.5665/2011, these Writ Petitions are also disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)