1 wp 8157.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8157 OF 2011 Dadu Sahadu Gorakhe .. Petitioner Versus Namdeo Mahadu Gorakhe and others .. Respondents Shri V. P. Latange, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner filed objection petition and prayed for cancellation of mutation entry No. 2509 before the Tahsildar. The said mutation entry was set aside by the Tahsildar. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, who allowed the appeal. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner also dismissed the revision. The petitioner has assailed the said orders in the present petition. 2 wp 8157.11 2. Shri Latange, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sahadu was owner of said 93R land. After the death of father, the name of the mother was included in the revenue record. The mother of the petitioner died in the year 1984 and the petitioner’s name should have been incorporated in the revenue record, but the respondents took benefit of the fact that the petitioner is illiterate and got his name mutated. The learned counsel further contends that the authorities have failed to consider the right of the petitioner in the said property. Even the respondents have filed the suit for declaration of ownership. In such circumstances, the Sub Divisional Officer, the Collector and the Commissioner should not have negatived the claim of the petitioner. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the order. The Sub Divisional Officer has stated in its order that the petitioner could obtain the succession certificate from the competent court and thereafter his name can be mutated in the relevant revenue record. Now, it appears that the proceedings before the Civil Court are pending, wherein the respondents have claimed the declaration about ownership. It is trite law that the decisions of the Civil Court are binding on 3 wp 8157.11 revenue authority. 4. In the light of the fact that the Civil suit is pending and decision of Civil Court would be binding on revenue authorities, I do not feel it appropriate to entertain the petition at this stage. In the light of above the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11