Vasant Ramchandra Patil L.Rs. Bharat Vasant Patil And ORS v. The State Of Mah And ORS
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8513 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9810 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.40 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1906 OF 2007 Vasant s/o Ramchandra Patil, died, through L.Rs.
Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents None appears for applicants.
Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.M.M.Bhokarikar, advocate for Respondents No.5 to 8. CORAM : R.M.BORDE & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 12th February, 2015 PER COURT:
These are applications presented by the applicants seeking restoration of the application presented for restoration of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution and for restoration of appeal dismissed for non prosecution as well as for condonation of delay occurred in presenting the applications.
Considering the contentions raised in the application, both the applications are allowed. Civil Application seeking restoration of Civil Application for restoration of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution is allowed. Delay occurred in presenting the application stands condoned. The order dismissing LPA for want of prosecution is recalled and Letters Patent Appeal is restored to its original number. Both the Civil Applications stand disposed of. SUNIL P. DESHMUKH R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE adb/ca851312
{2}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.40 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1906 OF 2007 Vasant s/o Ramchandra Patil, died, through L.Rs.
Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents None appears for appellants.
Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.M.M.Bhokarikar, advocate for Respondents No.5 to 8. CORAM : R.M.BORDE & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 12th February, 2015 PER COURT:
None appears for appellants.
We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1906 of 2007 on 30.01.2008. The dispute between the parties relate to recording of mutation entries. It is well established that the revenue entries are recorded for fiscal purposes and such entries, in themselves, do not constitute evidence in respect of ownership or entitlement of a party in relation to immovable property in question. The revenue entries recorded by the revenue officials can be corrected in accordance with determination of rights of the parties by the competent Civil Court, concerning the immovable property. In the light of the principle enumerated in para 3 of the judgment
{3} delivered by the learned Single Judge, no interference is called for in the LPA. LPA is devoid of substance.
Hence, Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. Pending Civil applications, do not survive and stand disposed of. SUNIL P. DESHMUKH R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE adb/ca851312