Remand orders must ensure due consideration of prior judgments in subordination to ensuring parties' rights are preserved in contested claims regarding mutation.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The present writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.200827/2022.

3. In this writ appeal, it is prayed to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 25.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.200827/2022 and dismiss the writ petition with liberty to prosecute the rights before the civil Court with costs.

4. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Respondent No.1 herein filed the writ petition impugning the correctness of the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, in a Revision filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The said revision petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in an appeal filed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The dispute was in respect of certification of mutation entry No.19/1981 certified by the Tahsildar, Raichur. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein and the appellants had questioned the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner took note of the fact that on an earlier occasion, the Assistant Commissioner had dismissed the appeal in terms of the order dated 25.05.2006, in the earlier appeal filed by the other family members of respondent No.1 herein. For that reason, the Deputy Commissioner is of the opinion that the Assistant Commissioner committed an error in allowing the appeal before him and consequently, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition. Having perused the records, the learned Single Judge observed that it is borne out from the records that a civil suit was filed in O.S.No.119/2004 and in the said suit, twenty properties were shown as the suit properties and those properties are covered under the disputed Mutation entry No.19 dated 06.03.1981. The said suit was dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree, R.A.Nos.1/2010 and 23/2013 were filed and both the appeals were dismissed. Against which, there was a Regular Second Appeal in RSA No.200263/2015. The said Regular Second Appeal was also withdrawn. Having taken note of all these factors into consideration, it is observed that since the appeal filed by the appellants as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.119/2004 was dismissed, the same has attained its finality. It is also observed that the trial Court in the above said suit framed issue No.2 relating to the disputed mutation entry No.19/1981 and also finding was given on issue No.2. The Deputy Commissioner has not taken into consideration the judgment rendered by the civil Court as well as the judgments rendered by the appellate Courts. Having considered this aspect and also considering the material on record, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Deputy Commissioner has to hear the revision filed by the appellants herein afresh and by considering the above mentioned judgments, has to pass appropriate orders. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has specifically observed that it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the respective parties including the appellants and direction was also given to the Deputy Commissioner to pass an appropriate order after hearing both parties, considering the judgments passed in O.S.No.119/2004, R.A.Nos.1/2010 and 23/2013 as well as RSA No.200263/2016 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. This order is challenged before this Court.

5. The main conten