IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4187 of 2011 Keshavrao Ramchandra Ronghe ..Vs.. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.S. Patil, Adv. for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 30 t h August, 2011. Heard. The Tahsildar had mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue record in regard to the concerned field in pursuance of an application filed by the petitioner before the Talathi. The order of the Tahsildar was challenged by the respondent no. 2 before the Sub- Divisional Officer. It was the case of the respondent no.2 that the name of the petitioner was mutated without issuing notice to the respondent and without granting him an opportunity of being heard. It was the case of the respondent no.2 that the Tahsildar has recorded the name of the petitioner in the revenue record though he was not the sole owner of the field property. The respondent no.2 claimed that he had a share in the suit property and he ought to have been heard before the mutation entry was recorded. On hearing the counsel for the parties, the Sub- Divisional Officer by an order dated 12.5.2008 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.2 and directed that the mutation entry should be recorded in the name of Manda, the widow of Sudam, the original owner of the property. Since the dispute was of civil nature, the Sub- Divisional Officer observed that the parties should seek redressal of their grievance before the civil court. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was upheld by the Additional Collector, Amravati by the impugned order dated 22.1.2009. The Additional Collector directed the Tahsildar to issue notice to the concerned parties and on hearing them correct the mutation entry after due inquiry. The Additional Collector directed that the name of deceased Sudam be retained in the record till the matter was decided by the Tahsildar. Though the petitioner filed a revision against the order passed by the Additional Collector before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, by the impugned order dated 15.7.2011, the Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati. The orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is necessary to note that since the name of the petitioner was recorded without issuing notice to the other legal heirs of Sudam, the Additional Collector had rightly directed the Tahsildar to hold fresh inquiry and correct the mutation entries accordingly. The Additional Commissioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case rightly upheld the order passed by the Additional Collector. The judgment reported in 2003(2) Mah.L.J. 276 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in the instant case neither the Additional Commissioner nor the Additional Collector had directed the Tahsildar to adjudicate upon the rights or title of the parties. The authorities had remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh inquiry so that the mutation entries could be recorded in the name of the legal heirs of Sudam. In any case, the entries in the revenue records do not confer any title on the parties. The authorities rightly held that the parties were free to approach the civil court for a declaration of their title. Since the orders passed by the three authorities do not suffer from any illegality, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan