Respondents lack standing to challenge revenue entries while decree of specific performance remains unchallenged.

ORAL ORDER

On the basis of a Agreement of Sale dated 26.07.1994, Sri. Veerendra Kathuria instituted a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.434/1994 against his vendor Sri. Lingappa. On 30.05.1996, after contest, the said suit in O.S.No.434/1994 was decreed.

2. Being aggrieved, Sri. Lingappa preferred an appeal in R.F.A.No.516/1996. The said appeal was dismissed on 23.02.2007. It is stated that no further appeal was preferred and as a consequence, the decree of specific performance obtained by Sri. Veerendra Kathuria has become final. Thereafter, he instituted execution proceedings in Execution Case No.13/2014. In these execution proceedings, a Court Commissioner was appointed to execute the Sale Deed by an order dated 05.04.2018 of the Executing Court and thereafter, the Sale Deed was also executed in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria on 20.04.2018 and the same was also registered.

3. It may be pertinent to state here that after the appeal filed by Sri. Lingappa was dismissed on 23.02.2007, his children instituted a suit in O.S.No.682/2013 seeking for partition, in which, they made Sri. Lingappa and his siblings and his children as parties. This suit for partition ended in a Compromise Decree on 18.11.2013, on the basis of which, the khatas were mutated.

4. Being aggrieved by the order appointing a Court Commissioner for execution of the Sale Deed, Sri. Lingappa preferred R.A.No.5024/2018. The Appellate Court allowed the said appeal, set aside the order, by which, a Court Commissioner was appointed and remanded the matter to the Executing Court for reconsideration.

5. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order of remand, the matter is still pending adjudication before the Executing Court.

6. It is also admitted by the petitioners' counsel that the petitioners have infact instituted a suit in O.S.No.947/2018 seeking for setting aside the decree of specific performance obtained by Sri. Veerendra Kathuria in O.S.No.434/1994 and the said suit is also pending consideration.

7. As the matter stood thus, the petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner and requested him to set aside the mutation made in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria on the basis of the Sale Deed that had been executed in his favour in the execution proceedings. The Assistant Commissioner taking note of the order passed in R.A.No.5024/2018, by which, the Appellate Court had set aside the order appointing the Court Commissioner, has directed the revenue entries which had been made in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria, to be set aside.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order, Sri. Veerendra Kathuria preferred revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act , 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order, has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and as a consequence, the revenue entries has stood before the order of the Assistant Commissioner have stood restored.

9. The petitioners are none other than the father, sister, brother, daughter and sons of Sri. Lingappa. They contend that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order even without notifying them. It is their case that since the khata had stood in their names pursuant to the Compromise Decree passed in O.S.No.682/2013, they were required to be heard in the matter.

10. It is also stated that immediately after getting the Sale Deed registered in favour of Sri. Veerendra Kathuria, has immediately executed four Sale deeds in favour of four different persons on 13.