CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged endorsement dated 4-2-1986, copy as at Annexure t to writ petition, whereby the respondent 1-corporation had revoked the khata of the property in respect of 1/2 and 1/3 on the ground that the said property belonged to it ( 2 ) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri b. n. dayanand and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents 1 and 2 by Sri B. V. Muralidhar. The respondents 3 and 4 are represented by Sri g. b. shastry. ( 3 ) IT is submitted that the petitioner herein had constructed houses in property nos. 1/2 and 1/3 which according to the respondent-corporation belongs to them. That at the first instance, the corporation had registered the khata in the name of the petitioner herein and subsequently when the corporation came to know that, that property belonged to them, they issued the impugned endorsement to revoke the khata they had registered earlier. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the Corporation Act, the respondent 1-corporation has got no authority to revoke the khata once registered and therefore the impugned endorsement according to him is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) AS against the above argument, the counsel appearing for the corporation, Sri muralidhar vehemently argued that even on the day on which the writ petition was filed before the court there was no subsisting interest in the petitioner, for the petitioner had sold the subject property as long back as in the year 1983 to the respondents 3 and 4 and therefore according to him, on that ground alone, the petition has to fail. Incidentally, he had also pointed out that by inserting Section 114 to the Corporation Act dated 3-5-1995, the corporation was empowered to review the khata registered earlier by it. Anyway, in the instant case, that question did not arise, as on the date of issue of the endorsement, there was no such authority vested in the corporation. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 who are stated to be the subsequent purchasers of the said property from the petitioner supported the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason being that they are the subsequent purchasers who had succeeded to the title of the property. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 who are stated to be the subsequent purchasers of the said property from the petitioner supported the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason being that they are the subsequent purchasers who had succeeded to the title of the property. ( 6 ) WHATEVER may be the circumstances, in my considered view, when the petitioner himself had no subsisting interest as on the date of filing the writ petition, he being not the owner, there cannot be a writ petition by him before this court to challenge that endorsement, particularly when that endorsement issued was on 4-2-1986 and that he had parted with and alienated the property by a registered sale deed to the respondents 3 and 4 and unfortunately it is not the respondents 3 and 4 who are before the court by invoking the writ jurisdiction, the reason may be obvious, for the respondent 1 corporation had put forth its claim over the entire property. ( 7 ) IN that view of the matter, i do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails and accordingly dismissed. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner had also cited be fore mes. Shivashankar v commissioner, corporation of the city of Bangalore and another, on the point that the corporation had no authority to revoke the khata once registered and that if at all the corporation is aggrieved thereof, it was open for the corporation to resort to suit before the civil court. I do not think the said decision is having any bearing on the instant case in hand, for the reason that as on the date of the writ petition, the petitioner had no subsisting interest. The writ petition is dismissed. No cost. --- *** --- .