The appellant, who was respondent No.4 in the writ

proceedings has assailed the order of the learned Single

Judge in WP No.116791/2019 dated 23.02.2022, whereby

the learned Single Judge has set-aside the order passed in

RP No.35/2019 and consequently, directed to enter the

revenue entries in the name of the petitioner before the writ

Court.

2.

The parties are referred to as per their ranks

before the learned Single Judge for the purpose of

convenience.

3.

Admitted facts being that the petitioner was the

purchaser of the property bearing Sy.No.2/1P-P1 measuring

6 acres 20 guntas through registered sale deed executed on

20.3.2018 and later registered on 15.6.2018. The petitioner

upon approaching the revenue authorities for changing the

mutation entries on the basis of the sale deed, respondent

- 3 -

No.4 objected to such transfer of revenue entries on the

ground that the sale deed was nominal sale deed intended to

secure a loan and that RFA No.833/2013 was pending before

this Court and respondent No.4 and another litigant in which

title to the property which was the subject matter of the sale

deed was an issue.

4.

The Tahsildar having rejected the application by

order dated 19.11.2018, the same came to be challenged

before the appellate Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner,

who allowed the appeal and directed to enter the revenue

entries in the name of the petitioner, same came to be

challenged by way of revision under Section 136(3) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Deputy

Commissioner, who allowed the revision petition relegating

the parties to the Civil Court. The said order came to be

challenged before the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid

writ petition, who after a detailed consideration and by a

reasoning contained at para-7, allowed the writ petition

setting aside the order in RP No.35/2019 and directing the

revenue entries to be made in the name of the petitioner.

- 4 -

5.

Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 is

before this Court.

6.

Learned

counsel

appearing

on

behalf

of

appellant/respondent No.4 submits that OS No.14/2020 has

been filed seeking to set-aside the sale deed dated

20.03.2018, which suit is pending before the Principal Senior

Civil Judge & CJM, Dharwad, and that if proceedings in the

suit are allowed to conclude and sale deed is set aside,

respondent No.4 would be prejudiced at present if revenue

entry is entered at this point of time without waiting for the

outcome of the said suit.

7.

It is also pointed out that RFA No.833/2013 came

to be compromised conferring title upon respondent No.4

and that were to be so, the revenue authority cannot enter

into the correctness of the judgment and decree passed in

RFA

No.833/2013

and

accordingly,

submits

that

the

approach of the learned Single Judge is erroneous.

8.

It is further contended that the observation of the

learned Single Judge that respondent No.4 having executed

sale deed dated 20.3.2018 could not have entered into a

- 5 -

settlement in RFA No.833/2013 without getting the sale deed

dated 20.03.2018, set aside is a erroneous observation as

the writ Court while exercising power of judicial review as

regards orders of revenue authority ought not to enter into

aspects of title. The judgment in Anjinappa and Others

Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore

District and Others, reported in 2020 (2) Kar.L.J. 367

has been relied upon.

9.

Heard the learned counsel Sri. K.L.Patil who has

opposed the relief sought for by the appellant and submits

that the approach of the learned Single Judge is consistent

with scheme under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and

once there is a registered instrument that has placed before

the revenue authority, revenue authority has no discretion to

go beyond it and to proceed for making revenue entry in

terms of the registered document.

10. Heard both sides.

11. The learned Single Judge has observed that the

sale deed dated 20.03.2018 requires to be followed and

revenue entries being ought to be