JUDGMENT : 1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by the common order. 2. W.P.No.9948/2017 has been filed by Mr. Harpeeth Singh Dhesi s/o Shivcharan Singh Dhesi, challenging the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Commissioner of BBMP vide Annexure-A dated 08.02.2017 in favour of Smt. Madhavi w/o Jai Prakash Narain, canceling the khata entries in his favour in respect of the property situated at 18th cross Road, No.3, Phase-1, Ideal Homes Township, formed in Sy.Nos. 19 & 22 of Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. 3. This order dated 08.02.2017 was passed in exercise of powers under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, (for short 'the Act') which gives the review power to the said authority. 4. W.P.No.48513/2016 has been filed by Smt. Madhavi challenging the orders passed by the 3rd respondent-District Registrar & Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and 4th respondent-the senior Sub-Registrar vide Annexure-H dated 02.03.2016 and Annexure-L dated 16.03.2016 respectively, on the issue relating to the deficit stamp duty on the Sale Deed purportedly executed by Mr. Harpreet Singh Dhesi on 05.03.2016 as power of Attorney holder to Smt. Madhavi in favour of himself and it was registered by the Sub-Registrar on 17.03.2016. Smt. Madhavi has challenged the said orders on the ground that the said District Registrar & Deputy Commissioner of Stamps could not have entertained the application of Mr. Harpreet Singh Dhesi, which was filed beyond the prescribed period of one month. 5. The learned counsels at the bar also submitted before the Court that there is a matrimonial dispute between Smt. Madhavi and her husband Mr. Jai Prakash Narain and therefore, the said husband Mr. Jai Prakash Narain has filed a civil suit for partition of the property including the said property in question in O.S.No.157/2016 which is pending in the 5th Addl. Judge, Family Court at Bangalore. 6. The Sale Deed dated 05.03.2016 purportedly executed by the said Mr. Harpreet Singh Dhesi as Power of Attorney Holder of Smt. Madhavi in favour of himself (Harpreet Singh Dhesi) has not so far been challenged by any of the party except in O.S.No.157/16, the husband of Smt. Madhavi, Mr. Jai Prakash Narain is said to be claiming that the said sale deed could not be operative against his share in the said property. 7. Jai Prakash Narain is said to be claiming that the said sale deed could not be operative against his share in the said property. 7. The question involved in these two writ petitions regarding khata entries made by the Respondent-Joint Commissioner of BBMP and the orders passed by the District Registrar of Stamps and Sub-Registrar about the deficit stamp duty with respect to the said Sale Deed are the questions incidental and would depend upon the respective proprietary rights of the three parties in question yet to be decided by the competent Civil Court on the basis of the relevant evidence led before it. 8. The respective authority of BBMP for entries in the khata maintained by them under the provisions of the Property Tax Rules, 2009 as well as the orders passed by the District Registrar of Stamps and Sub-Registrar about the deficit stamp duty, will naturally abide by the respective proprietary rights to be first decided by the competent Civil Court. The writ jurisdiction at this stage cannot be invoked by any of these parties in a lis, till such respective rights are decided by the competent Civil Court. Even, if the said Sale Deed in question has not been specifically assailed so far, the aggrieved party should first approach the Civil Court by way of a properly instituted civil suit to challenge the said Sale Deed. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims raised before this Court in the present writ petitions, the parties are relegated back to avail their remedy before the Civil Court in the existing suit or in the freshly instituted suit, if so advised. The orders impugned in present two writ petitions will abide by such determination by Civil Courts in civil suits. 9. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations. No costs.