N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the Counsels appearing for all the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has assailed the correctness of the impugned order dated 14-2-2000 bearing No. REV/sr/25/98-99 (Ann-D) passed by the 1st respondent. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the property bearing GTS No. 74/c and 74/d situated at Somwarpet, Tilakwadi, Belgaum, are the ancestral properties of the petitioner's family. The suit in O. S. No. 547 of 1988 for partition and separate possession was filed on the file of the principal Civil Judge, Belgaum, which was decreed on the basis of the compromise petition filed by the parties on 8-11-1993. In pursuance of the said compromise decree the petitioner filed wardi to enter his name in the CTS records before the 3rd respondent, who by an order dated 10-3-1995 directed to enter the name of the petitioner as per the compromise decree. Assailing the said order passed by the 3rd respondent, 4th j respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent herein, who in turn allowed the appeal by his order dated 17-1-1997 and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh disposal. After the remand the 3rd respondent on 4-8-1997 passed an order directing to continue the name of the 4th respondent in respect of the property in question. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the 3rd respondent the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent who after hearing the parties allowed the appeal on 6-8-1988 and directed to enter the name of the petitioner as per the compromise decree passed in o. S. No. 547 of 1988. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, 4th respondent herein has filed the revision before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent after hearing both the parties and after considering the relevant material on records allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent and further observed that the said order is subject to the decision of the Civil Court as the matter is seized in O. S. Nos. 547 of 1988 and 655 of 1996. The petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 14-2-2000 (Annexure-D) has presented this writ petition. 547 of 1988 and 655 of 1996. The petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 14-2-2000 (Annexure-D) has presented this writ petition. ( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in pursuance of the compromise decree passed by the competent Civil Court the name of the petitioner was entered in the CTS records and the said decree was not challenged by the 4th respondent, when the name of the petitioner was entered. Further, he is quick to point out that the 2nd respondent has rightly allowed his appeal after considering the matter on merits and by taking into consideration of the decree passed by the Competent Authority and directed the respondent to restore the entry made in favour of the petitioner. Further he pointed out that the Revisional Authority is not justified in interfering with the order passed by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the name of the petitioner entered in the CTS records is on the basis of the compromise decree passed by the competent Court. I fence, he prayed that the order passed by the 4th respondent is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent inter alia contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected at the threshold on the ground of suppression of material i'acts on record. The learned Counsel quickly pointed out that as a matter of fact when the Original Suit No. 547 of 1988 was filed on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum, the 4th respondent was arrayed as 2nd defendant and subsequently without the knowledge of the 4th respondent and at the connivance of the family members of the petitioner, intentionally and deliberately deleted her from the said suit just to defeat her valuable right in respect of the suit schedule property. Further, the learned counsel placed reliance on a registered settlement (teed executed on 7-4-1977 by father of the 4th respondent in her favour. In pursuance of the said settlement deed the name of the 4th respondent was entered in the GTS records. From, that date till as on the date of the filing of the suit, the 4th respondent is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in question. In pursuance of the said settlement deed the name of the 4th respondent was entered in the GTS records. From, that date till as on the date of the filing of the suit, the 4th respondent is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in question. The learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has contended that the 4th respondent has already filed the suit in O. S. No. 258 of 1996 challenging the exparte compromise decree arrived at between the family members of the petitioner and also contended that the said ex parte compromise decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum in O. S. No. 547 of 1988 on 8-11-1983 is not binding on the 4th respondent. This fact was rightly taken into consideration by the Revisional Authority while passing a well-considered and reasoned order. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent on the facts and legal position. ( 6 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the 1st respondent is justified in passing the impugned order by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent. ( 7 ) FROM the facts and circumstances as narrated above, it is clear from the track of the record beyond reasonable doubt that as a matter of fact as rightly stated by the 4th respondent in her statement of objections that the property bearing CTS No. 74/c and 74/d are her ancestral property and she is in possession of the same as per the settlement deed. In support of her case, she has produced Annexure-R1 (registered settlement deed), in pursuance of which, her name was entered in the CTS records and from, that date she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. Further, it is significant to note that as a matter of fact, the petitioner herein is not in possession of the suit schedule property in question. In view of that, the petitioner himself has filed original suit in No. 258 of 1996 for possession on the file of the Civil judge and the said suit is pending for consideration. Further, it is significant to note that as a matter of fact, the petitioner herein is not in possession of the suit schedule property in question. In view of that, the petitioner himself has filed original suit in No. 258 of 1996 for possession on the file of the Civil judge and the said suit is pending for consideration. In view of that, the revisional Authority has rightly taken into consideration of the material facts on records has rightly passed the order setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent and also directed both the parties that the order of the Revisional Authority is subject to the result of the suits pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge filed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Further, it is worthwhile to point out that as stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent that originally in O. S. No. 547 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, belgaum, the 4th respondent was arrayed as 2nd defendant in the said suit subsequently with the connivance of the members of the petitioner's family deliberately deleted her name just to defeat her legitimate rights in respect of the suit property in question. This fact was deliberately and intentionally suppressed by the petitioner and he has not whispered a single word in the present writ petition. Therefore, on the ground of suppression of material facts also the writ petition is liable to be rejected by imposing reasonable cost. However, as the dispute is between the family members of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, I do not propose to impose cost. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the factual and legal position as stated supra and in my considered view, the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition stands dismissed. The dismissal of this writ petition will not come in the way of the parties to prosecute their respective rights before the Civil Court in pending suits viz. , O. S. Nos. 558 and 655 of 1996. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition stands dismissed. The dismissal of this writ petition will not come in the way of the parties to prosecute their respective rights before the Civil Court in pending suits viz. , O. S. Nos. 558 and 655 of 1996. Further, it is made clear that the Trial Court is directed to proceed to pass appropriate orders in the suits strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the orders passed by the 1st respondent and any observations made by this Court during the course of this order. ( 10 ) THE learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .