ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 05.12.2022 issued by the respondent-Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners of lands bearing Sy.No.155/1, measuring 3 acres and 13 guntas and Sy.No.159/1, measuring 1 acre 31 guntas, both situated at Hebbalu village, Mysuru Taluk. The lands are now within the limits of Mysuru Mahanagara Palike. It is contended that the father of the first petitioner Late Sri.Seetharamegowda filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in the year 1976. The competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner passed an order under Sections 10(1) and (3) holding certain portion of the land in question as excess land and forfeited the same to the Government. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the Regional Commissioner in Appeal No.11/1988-89. The Regional Commissioner is said to have allowed the appeal while setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, but remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. However, in the year 1999, the Urban Land Ceiling Act, was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is contended that the proceeding in respect of the lands in question stood abated.

3. It is further contended that however, there was interference at the hands of the revenue officials and therefore, two suits were instituted by the sons of said Sri.Seetharamegowda viz., S.Ramegowda and S.Chaluvegowda in O.S.Nos.366/2002 and 367/2002. The prayers in the said suits were for declaration of rights of the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and all persons claiming through the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The two suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by judgment and decree dated 08.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the respondent-Tahsildar to make the revenue entries in their favour in terms of the declaration made by the civil court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the applications were not considered and no orders were passed the petitioners herein filed W.P.No.17385/2021 before this Court seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to consider the applications having regard to the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2021. This Court by order dated 11.03.2022 disposed of the writ petition while reserving liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the respondent-Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk with all necessary particulars in respect of their claim. It was directed that the respondent-Tahsildar shall examine and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of four months. Consequent to the directions issued by this Court, after fresh representation was given by the petitioners, the impugned endorsement dated 05.12.2022 has been issued by the respondent-Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk declining to enter the names of the petitioners in the RTCs. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on going through the impugned endorsement, it is clear that the respondent–Tahsildar seeks to contend that the lands in question have been declared as excess land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, and therefore, the names of the petitioners cannot be entered in the land records.

5. However, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioners are aware that the State and its authorities have preferred regular appeals in R.A.Nos.187/2022 and 188/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.Nos.366/2002 and 367/2002. Having regard to the admitted fact that regular appeals have been preferred by the State and its authorities, it would be impermissible to change the revenu