Judgment :- 1. Question raised in this writ petition is similar to the one raised in W.P. No. 37340-345/2009 disposed of on 21.01.2010. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is also with regard to the order dated 04.12.2009 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. 3. By the said order, based on the findings arrived at by the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Assistant Commissioner, he has held that due to fraud and misrepresentation committed by the petitioners herein, the respondent No. 2 was made to part with huge sum of money towards the alleged consideration in respect of the land which allegedly belonged to the petitioner, in favour of the Department of Tourism. Hassan – respondent No. 5 herein. 4. While granting interim order, this Court directed the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 12,87,360/-. In the connected writ petitions, after hearing both the parties, this Court has held as under:- “6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on merits. I find that the nature of the allegations made in respect of the transactions denying, the very title of the petitioners on the ground that their predecessors in title had fraudulently, got katha effected in their names for excess land than they were entitled to, cannot be enquired into by this Court in the writ jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner can at best act as prima facie material for the authorities to initiate civil proceedings for declaratory relief including consequential reliefs. The impugned order cannot be sustained in law as the respondents-authorities cannot be judge in their own cause, Petitioners are seriously disputing the factual assertions made by the respondents stating that the portion of the lands sold by the petitioners did not belong to them but belonged to Channakeshava Swamy Temple, in that view of the matter, the only appropriate course open for respondents 2 and 6 is to institute a civil suit before the competent Court for necessary relief. 7. However, as the petitioners have already furnished bank guarantee as regards the amount due from them as per the interim orders passed by this Court, though the petitioners succeed on the ground that the proper remedy for the respondents 2 and 6 is to file a suit. 7. However, as the petitioners have already furnished bank guarantee as regards the amount due from them as per the interim orders passed by this Court, though the petitioners succeed on the ground that the proper remedy for the respondents 2 and 6 is to file a suit. I deem it just and proper to direct the petitioners not to withdraw the bank guarantee for a period of three months from today. Respondents 2 to 6 are at liberty to file suits before the Civil Court and pray for such interim orders as are permissible in law. If such a suit is filed. It is made clear that the Civil Court shall decide the matter including the interim relief to be sought, on its merits without being in any manner influenced by the observations made by this Court in this matter. It is also made clear that if respondents 2 and 6 fail to secure any orders in their favour within three months from today, the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners will not enure to the benefit of the authorities and the petitioners will be entitled to withdraw the guarantee,” 5. In the light of the order already passed in the connected writ petitions, this writ petition is also disposed of in similar terms with similar directions. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri R. Devdas is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.