SSK/955 1 WP/9401.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9401 OF 2010 Smt. Shakuntala Dattatraya Lokhande ....Petitioner Versus Shri Ramdas Nivrutti Lokhande & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. S. P. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Dubey Patil, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 30th August, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petition pertains to recording of the mutation entry. By Mutation Entry No.199 effected in the year 1978, names of respondent nos. 2 to 4 and one Bakubai Lokhande came to be deleted from the record of rights of the suit property. This mutation entry was challenged by respondent nos. 2 to 4 & Bakubai Lokhande by filing a proceeding before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said proceeding was allowed. The petitioner, thereafter filed an appeal. The appeal was allowed, and thereafter, respondent nos.2 to 4 and Bakubai Lokhande filed a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner allowed the revision. Consequently, Mutation Entry No.199 was set-aside. The petitioner, therefore, is before this Court. SSK/955 2 WP/9401.10 3. The Commissioner set-aside the mutation entry on the ground that the thumb impressions on the application in pursuance of which Mutation Entry No.199 was effected were not attested, and therefore, the validity and legality of this application was doubted. 4. It is now a settled position of law that mutation entry does not create or extinguish rights of the party and the same is recorded only for fiscal purposes. The parties are always at liberty to approach the Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated. A 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. In the present case, respondent nos. 2 to 4 and Bakubai Lokhande have filed civil suit for partition and separate possession against the petitioner and the said suit is pending. The Civil Court shall decide the said suit independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the finding recorded by the revenue authorities in the proceeding for recording the mutation entry. 5. Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Apex Court decisions in Santoshkumaar Shivgonda Patil & Ors Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors. reported in 2009(6) Bom. C.R.664 and Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 71 to contend that respondent nos. 2 to 4 SSK/955 3 WP/9401.10 and one Bakubai’s proceeding before the Sub-Divisional Officer was not filed within limitation. However, in view of the fact that the proceeding is for recording of the mutation entry and the rights of the parties are to be decided by intervention of the Civil Court and in fact, the parties have approached the Civil Court, I am not inclined to accept the petitioners submission in this regard. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)