Revenue authorities can exercise jurisdiction despite pending civil suits; their decisions do not establish title.

FINAL ORDER :

. By this petition, petitioners challenge judgment and order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dismissing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 162 of 2022 filed by the petitioners and confirming the order dated 09th November, 2022 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar rejecting petitioners’ application for temporary injunction.

2. Suit has been filed by petitioners seeking injunction to restrain the City Survey Officer, Ahmednagar from effecting any change in the record of rights of the suit property.

3. It appears that in another suit bearing R.C.S. No. 748 of 2000 seeking partition of suit property therein, the respondent No. 2 filed an impleadment application and after observing that the respondent No. 2 is the daughter of Sharifoddin, the Court allowed her application and impleaded her as party to the suit.

4. Armed with the observation of the Trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2019 passed in R.C.S. No. 748 of 2000, respondent filed an application before the City Survey Officer on 18.05.2022 for mutating her name to the record of rights of the property. Apprehending that the city survey officer would allow the application of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed suit bearing R.C.S. No. 563 of 2022 seeking perpetual injunction against the city survey officer from making any change in the record of rights of the suit property on the basis of the order dated 09.09.2019. Application for temporary injunction to restrain the city survey officer from approving mutation entry has been rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 09.11.2022. Misc. Civil Appeal No. 162 of 2022 filed before the District Court challenging order of the Trial Court has been rejected by judgment and order dated 13.12.2022.

5. Appearing for petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the issue of partition of the suit property is already subject matter in two suits pending before the Civil Court. In the light of pendency of such suits, the city survey officer cannot decide the issue and hold the respondent No. 2 as a daughter and record her name to the record of rights of the suit property. He would further submit that mere allowing of impleadment application by the Trial Court in R.C.S. No. 748 of 2000 cannot be construed to mean a valid finding of fact that respondent No. 2 is the daughter of Sharifoddin. He would advance a proposition that since the civil suit is pending for determining rights of the respondent No. 2 in the suit property, the revenue authorities cannot decide that issue by making changes in the names in record of rights. In support of his contention learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopinath Ganpatrao Pensalwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in MANU/MH/0832/2006.

6. Per contra Mrs. Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 would oppose the petition and support the order passed by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I am unable to accept the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mere pendency of a civil suit would prevent revenue authorities from exercising jurisdiction conferred upon them by the statute. It is trite that the entries in the revenue record do not establish title. As against this, the issue of title is involved in the pending civil suits. The Civil Court therefore cannot injunct the revenue authorities from ex