1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11132 OF 2010 Madhukar s/o. Sitaram Patil, R/o. Dhar, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Petitioner. Versus Santosh s/o. Pandit Patil, R/o. Dhar, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr. Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. B.R. Warma, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 7th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Mutation entry in the name of petitioner on the basis of registered sale deed has been set aside by impugned order by observing that his sale deed is not legal because title of his vendor was not absolute. 2. Advocate Shri. Patil for petitioner has pointed out that after sale deed the disputed mutation entry was taken and 27 years thereafter the correction was sought for by respondent No. 1. He pointed out that by impugned order the request of respondent No. 1 has been granted and mutation entry in favour of petitioner is directed to be altered. 2 3. Shri. B.R. Warma learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 states that respondent No. 1 should be left free to file civil suit for redressal of his grievance. 4. After hearing both learned counsel, I am satisfied that impugned order is also prejudicial to respondent No. 2. Hence, service upon respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. 5. The revenue authority could not have looked into the correctness and otherwise of the sale deed, that too after expiry of period of 27 years. Hence, impugned order is unsustainable. Same is quashed and set aside. 6. Respondent No. 1, who sought that correction, is free to approach competent Civil Court for ventilation of his grievance, if any, in accordance with law. Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp11132.10