(1.) Appeal under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has been preferred before respondent No.1 by way of R.R.T.S.R.No.59/2022, wherein, the order passed in M.R.122/2012-13 dtd. 17/5/2013 is prayed to be set aside with a direction to respondent No.2 herein to enter the name of certain persons in column No.9 of the RTC pertaining to properties mentioned in the appeal schedule. The appeal is still pending. In the said appeal, petitioners filed an interlocutory application, wherein, they have contended that the appeal is not maintainable. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of properties which are the subject matter of the appeal before respondent No.1 and that respondent No.1 cannot go into the title of the parties. The petitioners herein have become the owners by way of a compromise decree passed in a civil suit and that being the case, respondent No.1, unless the appellants before him got an order from the competent Civil Court to the contrary, should not have entertained the appeal.
(3.) It is a settled principle of law that revenue authorities are not entitle to decide the dispute pertaining to title of the property between the parties before them. However, the jurisdiction to enter the name of the owner in the revenue entries is with the revenue authorities. The prayer in the appeal pending before respondent No.1 pertains to change of mutation. It is within the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 to decide the same. Because of it, respondent No.1 has rejected the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are always at liberty to take up all necessary contentions by producing necessary documents before respondent No.1 and pray for dismissal of the appeal. It is needless to state respondent No.1 is duty bound to examine the documents placed before him by all the contesting parties and thereafter take a decision in accordance with law.