1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1487 OF 2008. Machhindranath Bajirav Kurhade ... Petitioner. Versus Kasam S/o Hidayatulla since deceased through L.Rs. Saleha Begum Sk.Kasam and others ...Respondents. ... Mr.D.S.Mali, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Joshi, advocate for the Respondent No.1-2 - absent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 01.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner challenges concurrent orders rendered by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector and the 2 Commissioner regarding mutation entry No.83 which was sanctioned on 11.2.1995 by the Circle Inspector, Harsool. The Revenue entry was taken in the 7/12 record for the first time on 15.1.1995. According to the petitioner, his father was cultivating the land in question bearing Gat No.27 as a tenant. He asserted that he continued to cultivate the land after death of his father. The mutation entry No.83 dated 11.2.1995 was challenged before the Sub- Divisional Officer, who came to the conclusion that the same could not have been sanctioned for want of proper evidence regarding the tenancy agreement. It appears that the petitioner alleged that the land was transferred in favour of his father. He further alleged that the old record pertaining to Tenancy Register etc. was not available. The Sub-Divisional Officer noticed that the entry was recorded without issuing notice to the Respondents. He also noticed that there was injunction order issued by the Civil Court regarding statusquo in respect of the construction and the same opinion is expressed by the Additional Collector. The 3 Commissioner dismissed the Revision Petition No. 2003/ROR/REV/PT/298 by order dated 20.2.2007. Thus, there are three concurrent findings about impropriety of the mutation entry which was recorded by the Circle Inspector (Revenue). 3. The revenue entries are not decisive of the rights and title. These entries are recorded for fiscal purposes. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate all the questions before the Civil Court inasmuch as the Civil suit is allegedly pending. The Civil Court shall not treat the revenue entries as final while deciding the rights of the parties. For, they are only of corroborative use. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders do not call for interference in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp148708