-: 1 :- wp-6706/11 group IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6706 OF 2011 Smt. Shivpriyadevi Kalakumar Bhogle ..Petitioner. Versus Shri. Khem Savant Shivram Savant Bhosale & Anr. ..Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6707 OF 2011 Smt. Shivpriyadevi Kalakumar Bhogle ..Petitioner. Versus Shri. Khem Savant Shivram Savant Bhosale & Anr. ..Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6708 OF 2011 Smt. Shivpriyadevi Kalakumar Bhogle ..Petitioner. Versus Shri. Khem Savant Shivram Savant Bhosale & Anr. ..Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6712 OF 2011 Smt. Shivpriyadevi Kalakumar Bhogle ..Petitioner. Versus Shri. Khem Savant Shivram Savant Bhosale & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Vikratm Sathaye i/b Res Legal for the petitioners. Mr. D. A. Patil i/b Milind Parab & Associate for R-1 & 2. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : August 22, 2011. P. C. : 1. Since the facts of all the four writ petitions are common, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Petitions pertain to the recording of mutation entries. The srp -: 2 :- wp-6706/11 group petitioner is sister of respondent no.1 and daughter of respondent no.2. After the death of her father in the year 1995, the name of petitioner alongwith respondents was recorded in the suit property by effecting mutation entry. This mutation entry was subsequently challenged by respondents before the SDO. The appeal was dismissed. However, Collector in second appeal allowed the appeal. Additional Commissioner, however, at the instance of the present petition set aside the Collector’s order and mutation entry was restored. Learned Minister by passing the impugned order set aside the Commissioner’s order and restored the order of Collector. Now, therefore, in effect the mutation entries recorded in the year 1995 are cancelled thereby petitioner’s name was directed to be deleted from the suit property. 4. It is the claim of the respondents that by virtue of the partition deed effected in the year 1977 and the Will-deed of the deceased father of 1st respondent and husband of 2nd respondent, executed in the year 1979, the petitioner has no right in the suit property. The respondents have filed proceeding to get the probate of the said Will. That probate proceeding is being contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. The petitioner has also filed a suit for declaration that the partition deed is null and void and this proceeding is being contested by -: 3 :- wp-6706/11 group the respondents and the lis is pending in the Civil Court. 5. It is settled principle of law that the mutation entries are effected for the fiscal purposes only and they do not create or extinguish rights of the parties. Reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Balwant Singh & Another v/s. Daulat Singh, reported in 1997 (7) SCC 137. The rights of the parties are required to be decided by the civil Court. In the present case, parties have already approached the civil Court and their disputes are pending for adjudication. Civil Court is expected to dispose of those proceedings independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the orders passed in revenue proceedings for effecting mutation entries. The impugned order is always subject to the outcome of the civil dispute pending before the Civil Courts. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the petitions in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. With above observations, Writ Petitions are disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)