The dismissal of suits filed by the respondents influenced the court's decision to quash the order staying the mutation entry in favor of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant Chandangoudar, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Commissioner disposing of the revision petition filed by respondent No. 4 herein under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), wherein the operation of the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner has been stayed till the disposal of the suit filed by respondents No. 5 to 7.

2. Petitioner purchased lands bearing Sy.No. 138/1A+1B+2Bx3 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas and Sy.No. 139/2 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas both situated at Karur village of Ranebennur Taluk through a registered sale deed dtd. 16/12/2005 from respondent No. 4. The Tahsildar on 10/8/2006, mutated the name of the petitioner vide M.E. No. 100 as contemplated under Sec. 129 of the Act. The mutation entry in favour of the petitioner was questioned by respondents No. 4 to 7 herein before the Assistant Commissioner under Sec. 136(2) of the Act. The said appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 4 herein filed revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 17/11/2011 staying operation of the mutation dtd. 10/8/2009 passed by respondent No. 2 Assistant Commissioner. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has acquired right, title and interest over the land in question by virtue of the registered sale deed dtd. 16/12/2005 executed by respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2-Tahasildar taking into consideration the registered sale mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records as contemplated under Sec. 129 of the Act. He further submits that O.S. No. 383 of 2008 filed by the vendor of the petitioner for declaring that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is null and void came to be dismissed by the judgment and decree dtd. 22/3/2016 and the same has attained finality. He also submits that O.S. No. 153 of 2006 filed by respondents No. 5 to 7 herein for partition and separate possession of their legitimate shares also came to be dismissed on 2/4/2015 and the same has also attained finality. Even otherwise, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 staying operation of the order passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal is not permissible in law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4, 6 and 7 submits that respondent No. 1 taking into consideration the suits pending between the parties has passed the impugned order which is perfectly legal and the same does not call for any interference.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 reiterates the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents No. 4, 6 and 7.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not dispute that the registered sale deed was executed by respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner. Sec. 128 of the Act provid3es for reporting of any acquisition by purchase, mortgage gift or otherwise to the prescribed officer within three months from the date of such acquisition. Sec. 129 of the Act provides for registration of mutations and register of disputed cases. In the instant case, the petitioner has acquired his right over the lands in question by virtue of registered sale deed dtd. 16/12/2005. Hence, respondent No. 1 was not justified in staying the operation of the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner subject to the outcome of the suit.

8. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the suit filed by respondents No. 4 to 7 has been dismissed and the same has attained finality. In view of the same, the impugned order dtd. 17/11/2011 passed by respondent No. 1 at Annexure-E is liable to be quashed.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order dtd. 17/11/2011 passed by resp