0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 18th day of June, 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P. MORAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2820 OF 1993 BETWEEN : Basavanneppa S/c Sangappa Kalyane, Maj or, R/o Bhalkj ‘I PETITIONER (Sri Patti for M,’s Patti Associates, Advocate for Petitioner) .R ND 1, The Assistant Commissioner, Basavakalyan Sub-Division, Basavakalyan, Bidar District 2. The Tahsiidar, Ehaiki Taluk, Ehaiki, Bidar District 3, Maiiikarjuna S/o Sangappa Kalyani - 2 4. Rajlmmar S/r, Nagasetty Kalyani 5, Shivakumar S/o Madhava Rar, 6, Sbivaraj S/r, Kallappa 7. Shan1eppa S/o Basappa Karkkle 3 to 7 are majors, Agriculturists by profession, R/r, Bhalki, Bidar District R!SPONDENTS (Sri I ,G, Gachohinamath for - 4 to 7 Sri . Ramakrishna, H/J.G.’P, for Ri & 2 R — 3 8Erved) Writ etjtjon filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the 0 onstitution of India, praying to; quash the order at Annexure - ‘F’ passed by the 1st respondent in No. SDB:RFV,CR.5/92—93/6543 dated 16—1O1992 as illegal by issuing a writ of certiorari, etc. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary bearing in “B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following : The petitioner impugns Annexure—F order. There is a dispute between the petitioner on the one hid and the 3rd respondent on the other with respect to certain land in —3— in Sy,No,154/AA, The petitioner claims 20 antas of land It is alleged that this vs obtained by him in a partition and the petitioners nane e entered in the Vutation Register. Subsequently the 3rd respondent seems to have sold an extent of I acre 20 guntas (which is alleged to be taken in the property belonging to the petitioner) to respon dents Nos.3 to 7, Respondents Nos,3 to 7 thereafter applied for change of mutation entries, By Annextire—E order, the Pahsildar directed the parties to approach the C ivil Court and work out their remedy there, Against the said order, an appeal was filed by respon dents Nos.3 to 7 before the Assistant Commissioner, The Appellate Authority entertained the appeal and set aside the order of the Tahaildar and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. This order Annexure—? is challenged in these proceed ings, 2, I have heard Vr,Patil, learned counsel f or the petitioner, as also Mr,Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondents ?os.3 to 7. 1 do not think the oer inrpupned calls for interference. All that the let respondent ha done is that he has granted an oppor tunity to the parties to contest the case and under the scheme of Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, when an objection is raised by any person, it is registered —4— registered as a disputed case and the disputed case is taken up for hearing and disposed of in accordance with Rules 65 and 66. Rule 66 contemplates the proce dure as laid down under Rule 43, Rule 43 provides a sumnry procedure to be followed in the matter • When such being the position, a decision has to be taken by the authorities after conducting an enquiry in compliance with Rule 43. It does not mean that an elaborate decision is to be rendered on the civil rights. It goes without saying that any order passed by the Revenue Authorities in these proceedings will be subject to the result of duly instituted suit, as the entry in the utation Register or R.T.C,do not confer any t 1 tie, I make i t a Ic ar that the partie a are at liberty, if they feel that the whole dispute is to ‘be settled by a civil suit, to take recourse to the same as well. In the instant ease the xspective parties have only been given an opportunity to contest the case, No prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/ JUDGE P Icc.