1. Writ jurisdiction has become a fertile area for frivolous, petty, undeserving matters to be brought and parked in the High Court which is nothing short of a gross misuse and abuse of the process of this Court.

2. The present writ petition does not project any different scenario. A dispute and tussle going on between the petitioner and the first respondent who are cousins and are warring over the dispute of the extents to otherwise in respect of a pathway said to be running adjacent to inside Sy.No. 131/1, 128/2, 138/2 and to a distance of about 500 meters, which is described in the schedule to the plaint in O.S. No.106/07 filed by the first respondent herein against the very petitioners.

3. Such dispute is sought to be made subject matter of this writ petition, through the orders passed by the respondents 2,3 and 4 – Tahsildar. Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively as per Annexures A,B and C invoking their powers under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, particularly appeal to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 49 and Revision to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 50 respectively and with the petitioner asserting that the word described as ‘Kadanga’ being not a pathway or public road is required to be resolved in this writ petition by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs.

1. to quash the order dated 7.7.2009 in MAG 18/2007-08 passed by the 2nd respondent Tahsildar, Virajpet, produced at Annexure ‘A’ and

2. to quash the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent. The Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.80/09-10 produced at Annexure ‘B’ and

3. to quash the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent. The Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu at Madikeri in R.A. No.24/2009 produced at Annexure ‘C’, and

4. to grant such other reliefs as this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case with costs of this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.

4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sri N. Ravindranath Kamath wants to highlight a very settled position of law that the very subject having been made subject matter of an earlier suit in OS No. 139/1969 by the first respondent and his predecessors’ and kith and kin, while cannot be made subject matter in the subsequent suit and worse, being made subject matter of proceedings before the revenue authorities and suppressing the earlier proceedings before Civil Court and obtaining orders adverse to the interest of the petitioner before revenue authorities is nothing short of playing fraud on not only the petitioners, but also on the administration and therefore the present writ petition warrants interference even in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is also submitted that there are good number of other civil litigations between the parties and therefore the revenue authorities should have been careful not to get themselves entangled yet again but venturing to pass orders to deprive the petitioner of his interest in the land, is nothing short of a gross misuse of powers conferred on them and in support of his submission seeks to place reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 472, wherein the Apex Court had occasion to observe that during the pendency of civil litigation, criminal proceedings should neither be initiated nor kept pending particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute as multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation.

6. Submission of Sri G. Bhagavan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent is that