LPA No. 290, 291, 292/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5898 OF 2011 Habibkhan Ameerkhan Pathan Died through L.Rs. 1. Daud Kha s/o. Habibkhan Pathan and others. ....Appellants. Versus Sushil Shripal Gangawal & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for appellants. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for State. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5892 OF 2011 Habibkhan Ameerkhan Pathan Died through L.Rs. 1. Daud Kha s/o. Habibkhan Pathan and others. ....Appellants. Versus Sayed Pashu Sayed Baba & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for appellants. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. G.K. Naik-Thigle, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for State. LPA No. 290, 291, 292/2011 2 WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5884 OF 2011 Habibkhan Ameerkhan Pathan Died through L.Rs. 1. Daud Kha s/o. Habibkhan Pathan and others. ....Appellants. Versus Yusuf Afzalkha & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for appellants. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 19th October, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The learned counsel for appellants submits that the learned Single Judge committed error in dismissing the writ petitions. The counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction while passing the impugned order simply because the application is filed after 20 years by the petitioners for correction of the area. The learned counsel submits that though the civil suit filed by the appellants is pending, the revenue entries are required to be corrected so as to prima facie LPA No. 290, 291, 292/2011 3 establish possession of the respective parties. 3. We have considered the submissions advanced by Shri. Mukul Kulkarni, learned counsel for appellants and Shri. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for respondents. We have perused the record placed before us. 4. We find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the writ petitions. Civil litigation is pending between the parties. The issue in respect of partition of the property is also pending before the Civil Court. There are disputed questions of facts which could be decided by the Civil Court. In the facts of the case we do not find that the impugned order requires interference. The appeals are dismissed. 5. Shri. Mukul Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioners prayed for continuation of interim relief. We are not inclined to continue the interim relief. The request is rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/