NINGAMMA Vs. SHIVARAJEGOWDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is listed for orders on I.A.I. filed for vacating the stay, the same is taken up for final disposal and heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) ON the basis of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 14 of 1996, dated 24.8.1996, the Revenue Officer mutated the name of the Petitioner under Annexure -A in respect of the lands involved in this writ petition without giving notice to the first Respondent as he was not a party to the said suit. Aggrieved by the same the first Respondent filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. By the order at Annexure -B dated 9.12.1999 the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the katha made in favour of the Petitioner and ordered to enter the katha in favour of the first Respondent. Against that order the Petitioner preferred revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition by his order at Annexure -C dated 12.3.2001. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the orders at Annexures -B and C contending that the mutation effected pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court could not have been set aside.

(3.) IT is also seen from the statement of objections filed on behalf of the first Respondent that suit in O.S. No. 9 of 1999 is filed against the Petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Hunsur for declaration of title and the same is pending. The result of the said suit will be binding upon the parties. Hence, it is not a fit case for interference.