1W TH1 HIGH OOURT OF ARNATAVA A tm BANG4LOR DATED TTS 18PH DA OF JUN 1998 TH HON’BI MP,JTJgTT P,VTSHWANTR SHTTv WRIT PTITTON NO.16383/1998. BETWEEN: Shri V.S.inga Settv, S/s Sidda Setj, aged about 50 rears, na Boopanahere village Hobli, K.R,Pet Taluk, Mandya Diet, Repiesented by his G.P,A.Holder Sri Paraniersha do Warikutta Setty, aged about 45 years, n/a Bootanakere village & hobli, K,R.Pet Tq., Wandya .. TTTQN (By Sri.S.V,Naravana Murthy, dv.) 1. The State of yarnat&’a by its Secretary to Govt., M.S. BUildings, lr. Mnbedkar Veedhi, Bangalore—56) 001. 2. Th’ Asst.Dommissicner, Pandavapura Sub-Div s on, Pandavapura Tq., “andva T)ist. 3. The Tahsildar, T,R.Pet Paluk, M9nda Diet, 4. Sri.,M,Vishakante owda, s/s lateNinge Gowda, aged about ‘!ajor, Aralakuppe village, Boopanakee Hobli, T R Pet To. , 4andya Diet. —2— 5, Sri D,,Chandrasekharaiah s,’o Gurubasavaiah, ‘ajor, residing at Mun eshwara Blo ck, Bargalore_560 026, ,, (By Sri,B’,yotian, Ht’GP for R—1 to 3), This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 22 of the Oonstitution praying to quash vide Ann,G, dt,2”,5,8 passed by R2 on his file aw 1 also quash the order vide 4nn,P, dt.11,5,98 passed by R3, etc. This Writ Petition coming on for prliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:— ORDER Sri Kotian, ‘earned Govertwnt Advocate is directed to take notice to respondents—i to 3, 2. The petitioner in this petition has called in question the correctness of the orders passed by Respondents-2 and 3 directing thet the name of the 4th respondent should be entered in the revenue records pursuant to the sale of the land in question by the 5th respondent in favour of the 4th respondent. —3— 3, Sri Naraysna Mirthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sunitted that the materials on record would show that the 5th respondent before executing the Sale Deed in favour of the 4th respon dent had put the petitioner in possession of the land in question pursuant to the agreement to sele executed by the 5th respondent in favour of the petitioner. He further pointed out that the petitioner has already filed a suit for specific performance of theterms of the said agreement decree for and for/ azk* permanent injunctions and therefore, the impugned orders which directs thee the name of the 4th respondent should be entered in the revenue records would seriouslyaffect the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question, 4. Having regard to the facts and circum staves of the case, I am of the view, that —4— this is not a fit case finterference by this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, If the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders inpugned, he has remedy as provided under the proviso given to Section 13S of the Land Revenue Act. further, since te pties are already before the Civil court, it is open to the petitioner to seek for appropriate relief before the Civil court, if there is any interference with regard to his possession in respect of land in question. In that event, the Civil cirt is required to consider the claim ofthe parties on the basis of the materials that may be placed before it and withoutbeing influenced by the entries which is now seriously disputed by the peti tioner and also the observation made in the course of the orders impugned in this petition. 1’ —5— 5. SubJect tothe observation made above, this petition is rejected, 6. Sri iCotian, learned Government Advocate is given four weeks time to file his memo of appearance. 4 is