4%7 IN THE HIGH COURT O <KU4ATAKA AT BA’JGALORE DATED THIS THE 6 AY 0’JUNE lflS Before THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE P.VISHWANATHA SHETTY WR PETITION NO.13772/9B Sri Bs vegowda, s/o Sanna Mailegowda, aged 85 yrs, r/o Bastjhalli, Halebeedu H 0 bli, Belur Taluk, Hassan Di3t, Petitioier (By Sri Jagadeeshachari, Alvocate) vs 1, The Deuty Tahs’ldar, Halebeedu Nada Kacheri, Hassan District, 2, The Ast, Coanissioner, Saks I eswara, Hassan District, 3, SmtTbimmma, w/o late Mallegowda, major, r/o Bastihaili Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan Dist, Pespondents (By SrI K 0 tian, :-4CGA) for R1 and 27 This p tition is filed u/a 226 of the ConstI tution of Indiaprayin: to quash vide Ann,B a&i C dt,17,l1,97 by di and Ann,D dt,21,4,98 by R2, This netitlon coming on ‘or prelIminary hearing this day, the court made the ‘ollowjq: ORDER Sri Kotian learned Goverft Advocate is directed to take notice to respondents1 and 2, 2 The dispute in this petItion relates to entries made in the revenue records, The 3rd respondent is the wjtof the petittoners brother, 3. Both the Authorities have held against the petitioner, I do not find any infirniity in the orders impugned wich calls for interference this court n exercise of ts iurjsdjction ‘I either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the nstltution of India, Furthers if the tetitioner is aggrieved by the orders iugned remedy is provided to him under proviso given to Section 135 of the Land evenue Act, It is also not in disoute that the suit filed by the petitioner for peanent injunction ispendiadjuciation before the Clvii court, However, it is needless to observe that f the oarties anoroach the civil. court, the Civil court is required to consider the respective claim of the parties on the basis of: the evdence that may b.c placed before it and withcut being influenced either by the entries r.ade inthe revenue records which is seriously disouted or by the observation made inthe course of the imnugned order 4 The learned counsel for the netitioner submits that the petitioner is in posses 3ion of land in question. I find it diffic:ult to accept his submission. Even according to the submission made by Sri Jagadeeshachari the civil ccurt has not granted temrorrary injunction in his favour. Further, since the suit fcr injunction is pending before the civil court, it is unnecessary for me to so into the euestion as to who is in possession of the land in ouesticn, 5, I the ‘ig of the r scussior male above, this etltion Is liable to be jsmsse4, Accordingly, rt is dismissed, 6. Sri Kotlan, leand Govrn-nent Advocate is givrr cour weak tine ta fi e 1-is yr of ap’ear ancc, Sd/s JUDGE 1W -‘6,