Judgment:
ORDER
A.S. Bopanna, J.
1. The learned Government Advocate to take notice for respondent No. 4 and file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Insofar as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, there is no need to issue notice.
2. The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 02.03.2008 (to be correctly read as of the year 2009) passed in No. Revn. Petn. 19/2007-08, which is impugned at Annexure 'A' to the petition.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he has purchased the property in question under a sale deed dated 20.12.2001 which was executed by the Power of Attorney Holder of the owner of the property. In this context, the second respondent is the owner of the property, while the third respondent is the Power of Attorney Holder. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner is said to have secured the mutation order in M.R. No. 33/2001-02 in his favour and the consequent revenue entries were also carried out At that stage, the first respondent herein claiming to have purchased the property in question is said to have approached the revenue authorities for reversal of the said entries and for entering the name of the first respondent in the revenue records by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner had accepted the case of the first respondent and the revenue entries were changed to the name of the first respondent herein. In this regard, the first respondent claims title to the property under a sale deed dated 04.04.2001 which is said to have been executed by the second respondent, who is himself the owner of the property. Since the Assistant Commissioner had upheld the contention of the first respondent herein, the petitioner was before the Deputy Commissioner in No. Revn. Petn. 11/2004-05. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 13.02.2006 had remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to redo the process after making a spot inspection of the sites, since according to the Deputy Commissioner, the claim put forth would indicate that the boundaries are not properly described and there could be overlapping. On remand, the Assistant Commissioner has once again upheld the contention of the first respondent herein and therefore, the petitioner was once again before the Deputy Commissioner in R.P. No. 19/2007-08. The Deputy Commissioner after considering the rival contentions has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there was a specific direction in the earlier instance to hold spot inspection, no such inspection had been held and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner in the present instance could not have upheld the contention of the first respondent to restore his name.
5. With regard to the right to the property, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the documents namely, the Power of Attorney and the sale deed as well as the revenue entries to indicate that the petitioner is claiming title under the said documents.
6. On behalf of the first respondent, it is contended that the petitioner claims title to the property under a sale deed said to have been executed by a Power of Attorney Holder, while the sate deed of the first respondent is a sale deed which has been executed by the owner himself and the said sate deed is earlier in point to time. The first respondent therefore claims right to the property and also contends that the revenue authorities were justified in relying upon such a document to change fee the revenue entries to the name of the first respondent.
7. Though rival contentions have been advanced with regard to the title of the property between the petitioner and the first impendent, it is noticed that the undisputed fact is that the first respondent herein has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 2707/06 against the petitioner claiming right to the said property and seeking for injunction by alleging interference by the petitioner. In the said suit, the very same sale deed on which reliance is placed has been placed relied to claim title.
8. The defence of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the property in view of the sale deed and therefore, the veil' nature of the dispute pending before the Civil Court would indicate that the questions raised in the present proceedings would have to be ultimately adjudicated upon based on the evidence that may be tendered before the Civil Court and cannot be decided in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. Therefore, I am of the view that as rightly noticed by the Deputy Commissioner the legal position is also that the parties can seek for revenue entries based on the ultimate judgment that may be passed by the Civil Court However, while disposing of the petition, a word would have to be said with regard to the present nature of the revenue entries and the manner in which the same has to be regulated. It is not in dispute that as on today, the revenue entry is standing in the name of the first respondent, since the earlier mutation order in M.R. No. 33/01-02 has been reversed. The revenue entry existing as on today shall be retained till the ultimate result of the civil dispute between the parties. However, the Tahsildar is directed to make an entry in Column No. 11 of the RTC indicating the civil dispute between the parties and the suit number. On decision being rendered by the Civil Court, the parties would be at liberty to re-approach the Tahsildar for necessary corrections in the revenue entries. It is needless to mention that either in the pending proceedings before the Civil Court or in any other proceedings before any other forum, any question with regard to the title or possession shall be decided independent of the existing revenue entries. The revenue entry presently existing shall not bet the only consideration to indicate either title or possession.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.