The court emphasized that competing property claims must be resolved through careful examination of relevant Sale Deeds and proper adjudication procedures, ensuring all parties have opportunities to present their case.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 13.03.2023 passed in R.P.No.166/2016-17 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, one Peter David was the absolute owner in possession of the land to an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.2 of Bikashipura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk as per the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1957. It is also stated that, pursuant to the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1957, the revenue records stands in the name of Sri. Peter David. It is stated that, the petitioner herein is the legal heir to Peter David as the said Peter David, was a bachelor. It is also stated that, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and one Smt. Grace Vinodini claiming as predecessor of late P.S.Chinnappa and Smt. D.A.Sumithra, jointly acquired the land measuring 103 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.1, 2 and 8 of Bikashpura village as per the registered Sale Deed dated 30.11.1954 and thereafter, the land was sold in favour of one Ranga Rao, Chief Secretary of Government of Mysore as per registered Sale Deed dated 21.03.1935 and same was prior to the Sale Deed dated 30.11.1954. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the mutation was effected in the name of Peter David in pursuance of the Sale Deed and his name was not entered in the RTC. Thereafter the petitioner has given application to respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has issued an Endorsement stating to approach the respondent No.2 and accordingly the petitioner has filed R.A.(S)No.282/2011-12 (Annexure-C) wherein, the respondent No.2 by order dated 19.03.2012 has quashed the Endorsement dated 07.02.2009 and directed the respondent No.3 to enter the name of the late Peter David in the revenue records in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1957 and thereafter the revenue records are standing in the name of said Peter David.

3. It is further contended in the writ petition that, the respondent No.3 had initiated suo-moto proceedings in R.A.No.187/2014-15, before the respondent No.2 in respect of the subject land in Sy.No.2 and the said Appeal came to be allowed by the respondent No.2 and directed to delete entries made in favour of late P.S.Chinnappa and others (father of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6) and directed to respondent No.3 to enter the name as "Government" in the revenue entries. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the respondent No.1 herein ought not to have remanded the matter to the respondent No.2 to look into the order produced at Annexure-C wherein the respondent No.2 has rightly passed the order by directing the respondent No.3 to enter the name of Sri. Peter David in the revenue records in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1957. Being aggrieved by the order of remand at Annexure-A, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. Sudhakar G.V. learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Savithramma, learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri. Anirudh M.B, learned counsel for Sri. George Joseph, Smt. Priya D. Khale, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Sri. M.G. Srinatha Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 7 to 11.

5. Sri. R.S.Ravi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the order at Annexure-E dated 05.05.2015 and contended that, unless the said order has been modified or quashed by the competent authority wherein the name of P.S. Chinnappa and others have been deleted from the khatha extracts and therefore, the said order is operating against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein without being challenged the same and therefore the order of remand made by the respondent No.1 is non est which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.

6. Learned Senior counsel further refers to the order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure