1 unreported IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2126 OF 1992. Nayeem S/o Janimiya, Age 50 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Kaij, Tq.Kaij, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Musa S/o Hussain Miya died L.Rs. a) Jilani widow of Musa Age 50 years, Occ.Household, R/o Kaij, Dist.Beed. b) Mukhit S/o Musa, Age 25 years, Occ.Agri., R/o as above. c) Mujib S/o Musa, Age 22 years, Occ.R/o as above. d) Maqsood S/o Musa, Age 18 years, Occ.and R/o as above. e) Isa S/o Hussain Miya. 2. The Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Kaij, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. ... Respondents. ... 2 Mr.D.R.Bhadekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for Respondent Nos.1-a to 1-e. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 26.02.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns order dated 16.9.1983, 3l.8.1987 and 3l. 10.1990, rendered by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, respectively, whereby the authorities declined to delete the term "Khud" written in the cultivation column of 7/12 record for the year 1980-81 in respect of land S.No. 427/A admeasuring 8 acres 32 gunthas situated at Kaij, Dist. Beed. 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival contentions. Suffice it to say that agricultural lands S.No.426 and S.No.427 situated at Kaij were originally held by one Dadamiya. After his death, the lands were 3 inherited by his three sons, namely Janimiya, Hussainmiya and Miyasaheb. There is also no dispute about the fact that both the lands were sub-divided in three shares. There is also no dispute about the fact that Miyasaheb held subdivided shares recognised as S.No.426-E and S.No.427-A during his life time. He died without any issue and was survived only by widow named Zaibunnisa. The dispute commenced after death of said Zaibunnisa. The petitioner is nephew of deceased Zaibunnisa and Miyasaheb. In her life time, the petitioner was inducted in possession of the said lands. It appears that his name was recorded in cultivation column by showing the manner of cultivation vide mode No.4 (..........). The other nephews of deceased Zaibunnisa including deceased Respondent No.1 staked their claims in respect of both the said lands as co-sharers on account of inheritance. The mutation entry No.1171 was thereafter sanctioned in name of all of them with direction that their names shall be recorded in the other rights column of 7/12 record. The names of the petitioner and the deceased Respondent were, 4 however, shown to be equal sharers to the extent of 8 annas each and their names were directed to be recorded with remark "Khud" (personally) in the column of cultivation. The petitioner challenged the relevant entry in the 7/12 record only to the extent of S.No.427-A by filing an appeal U/s 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1956. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal. The petitioner challenged the relevant entry by filing further appeal and Revision which both came to be dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is important to notice that the authorities directed that the question of rights of the petitioner and deceased Respondent could be considered by the Civil Court in an appropriate suit filed by either of them. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is not the sole heir of deceased Zaibunnisa. It is well settled that the revenue entries are not decisive of title or ownership. The Revenue entries are recorded for fiscal purposes like 5 identification of the person from whom the land revenue assessment is to be recovered. Needless to say, the revenue entry will not make or unmake the title. There can not be any duality of opinion that succession can not be disturbed by such revenue entries. The parties may get their rights decided through the Civil Court. 5. The petitioner has placed on record copies of 7/12 extracts vide Exh.1 (Colly.). It appears that his name was recorded in the column of cultivation for many years prior to death of Zaibunnisa. It is an admitted fact that Zaibunnisa died on 3l.7.1975. The name of the petitioner was shown in the cultivation column since 1961-62 onwards till death of said Zaibunnisa. In other words, he alone was the cultivator of land S.No.427-A during all the relevant years before death of Zaibunnisa. There was no tangible evidence to infer that this statusquo position has undergone any substantial change after death of Zaibunnisa. The direction to enter names of legal heirs including the deceased Respondent can not be faulted with. 6 They are the co-sharers and, therefore, their names were rightly recorded in the other rights column of the 7/12 record. The impugned M.E.No. 1171 purports to show that the revenue authorities considered the petitioner and the deceased Respondent as equal sharers and Managers of the joint families. There is no concept of joint family amongst members of Mohammedan community. It is well settled that no sooner the holder of a property dies, the legal heirs would get their due share notionally, as per the Personal Law. It is quite clear that presumption about continuity of the same state of affairs was not considered by the revenue authorities. There is presumption regarding continuity of the same state of affairs and, therefore, it ought to have been presumed that the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the land S.No.427-A, may be not as exclusive owner and although other sharers were entitled to claim their respective shares in the same. Under these circumstances, the relevant entry "Khud" (personally) could not be sanctioned qua the entry in name of the deceased Respondent. For, that would have given 7 rise to multiplicity of litigation. 6. Considering the defective process of mutation, I have no hesitation in holding that the entry in name of the deceased Respondent should have been taken by the concerned Revenue Authority with remarks that he was the co-sharer and that in the cultivation column, the entry "Khud" (Personally) shown against his name ought to have been deleted. It would be appropriate to relegate the parties to establish their rights in the Civil Court by appropriate Civil action. It is brought to my notice that one of the suit is pending for relief of perpetual injunction. The Respondents are at liberty to amend the prayers in the said suit appropriately for claiming separate possession to the extent of their sharers by way of partition to the extent of S.No.427-A. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned entry to the extent of the word "Khud" (Personally) shown against name of the deceased Respondent or his 8 legal heirs be deemed as deleted for the year 1980-81. Moreover, such revenue entries be not treated as final proof regarding any disputed fact of possession. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp212692