ORDER : Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Actg. C.J. 1. This is a writ petition in substance, challenging the order dated June 29, 2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot in No. RB/Vathana/CR/27/2003-04. This litigation has a chequered history. Initially, the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated August 5, 1995 passed under the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952 ('Act', for short), held that the disputed properties stood vested in the State. A writ petition was moved. Ultimately, a Division Bench of this Court, by judgment and order dated June 27, 1996, inter alia, held that the vesting of the land under Section 7 of the Act has been automatic and, therefore, persons asserting title in relation to those lands must go and establish their title before the Civil Court and, further, held that the land did not vest in the State. Against such order an application for special leave was filed before the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of India, by order dated July 30, 1996, affirmed the decision of this Court. 2. Consequently, this petitioner filed a suit being Original Suit No. 110 of 1996, which was subsequently renumbered as Original Suit No. 3 of 2006. By judgment and decree dated September 22, 2014, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hungund, decreed the suit and declared title in favour of the petitioner. It was, further, declared that the land did not vest in the State. 3. We are, however, informed that an appeal against such decree is pending adjudication before the Court of the learned District Judge. 4. In the meantime, the respondents 3 and 4, claiming to be the owners of the same property, wanted to assert their right. A proceeding was initiated and, ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner, by the said order dated June 29, 2007, declared that the property stood vested in the State under Section 7 of the said Act. 5. Srimathi S.R. Anuradha, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner strenuously argues that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, at the instance or the respondents 3 and 4, is bad. Respondents 3 and 4, already, instituted a suit which was dismissed on contest. The appeal against such decree was, also, dismissed. Therefore, the corollary of the situation is that the respondents 3 and 4 did not acquire any title in relation to the disputed land. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is apprehensive. Respondents 3 and 4, already, instituted a suit which was dismissed on contest. The appeal against such decree was, also, dismissed. Therefore, the corollary of the situation is that the respondents 3 and 4 did not acquire any title in relation to the disputed land. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is apprehensive. She feels that this order may be utilised by the appellants in the appeal filed against the decree in Original Suit No. 3 of 2006 as an additional evidence. We clarify that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner dated June 29, 2007 will not have any bearing in the said appeal inasmuch as it was initiated at the instance of the private respondents 3 and 4 whose title has been negated by the Competent Civil Court. Therefore, we request the learned Judge of the appeal Court to decide the appeal uninfluenced by the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner in the order dated June 29, 2007. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.