JUDGMENT : HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.12.2017, whereby the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 32293/2015 was not entertained and was dismissed. The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows: “(i) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P3. (ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in the form of the declaration that the petitioner has a preferential claim in the light of Ext.P1 and P2 for payment of basic tax in respect of the property in RS No. 509/1, 568/1 of Cheruvathoor Village in Hosdurg Taluk measuring 9 acres 79 cents in the name of the petitioner's society. (iii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction restraining respondents 4 and 5 from effecting change of affiliation of the petitioner's institution in the name of PKC Mohammed Hajee or any other institution claimed by him pending disposal of Ext.P4 and P5. (iv) An order of stay of all further proceedings restraining respondents 4 and 5 from effecting change of affiliation of the petitioner's institution in the name of PKC Mohammed Hajee or any other institution claimed by him pending disposal of Ext.P4 and P5 and pending the writ petition. (v) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may pleased to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 2. On the issue of the receipt of the basic tax for the property in the name of the Sharaf Arts and Science College, under the order dated 03.10.2015 (Ext.P3), the Tahsildar, Hosdurg declared that the tax has to be accepted from the President, Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee, Padne, having Registration Certificate No. 792/06. This Ext.P3 decision in favour of the 8th respondent P.K.C. Mohammed Haji, was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing appeal before the 2nd respondent, District Collector, Kasaragod, who by his order dated 12.07.2016 (Ext.P13), upheld the decision of the Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. 3. This Ext.P3 decision in favour of the 8th respondent P.K.C. Mohammed Haji, was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing appeal before the 2nd respondent, District Collector, Kasaragod, who by his order dated 12.07.2016 (Ext.P13), upheld the decision of the Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. 3. On the claim of change of name of the educational agency as Kidmath Organization of Padne, the Kannur University had issued the order dated 20.10.2015 (Ext.P6), whereby provisional affiliation of the College was granted, under the educational agency, i.e., Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee, Padne, Kasaragod and the counter claim to change the name to Kidmath Organization, Padne was rejected by the University. 4. The writ petitioner, i.e. the Sharaf Arts and Science College, Padne claimed that it has been paying all the Government dues, including the basic tax, in the name of the Kidmath Organization of Padne and although there were ongoing litigations with the respondents relating to the College management, on account of Ext.P1 injunction order dated 27.11.2008 in the O.S. No. 241/2008, as also the Ext.P2 injunction order dated 10.01.2009 in the O.S. No. 329/2006, it is argued that the Kidmath Organization of Padne is entitled to get advantage of the injunction orders, passed by the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg. 5. It is the further contention of the writ petitioner that the 8th respondent P.K.C. Mohammed Haji had secured the Ext.P3 order from the Tahsildar, without fully disclosing the status of the proceedings before the civil court and the said order was then erroneously sustained by the District Collector under the Ext.P13 order. It was the specific case of the writ petitioner that in view of Exts.P1 and P2 injunction orders, the orders passed by the Tahsildar (Ext.P3) and the District Collector (Ext.P13) affirming the Ext.P3 order in favour of the 8th respondent, cannot be sustained, as those orders failed to take into account the injunction orders operating amongst the litigants. 6. Per contra, the 8th respondent contended that the educational agency is entitled, as of right, to pay the tax and the writ petitioner has no role in the educational activities carried on by the agency. The locus standi of the College to file the Writ Petiton was also questioned by the 8th respondent, as the College is not a registered organization. 7. The locus standi of the College to file the Writ Petiton was also questioned by the 8th respondent, as the College is not a registered organization. 7. In so far as the re-affiliation granted to the College by the Kannur University on 20.10.2015, by revising the ownership of the College for the Educational agency, Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee, Padne, Kasaragod, in spite of the contrary contention raised by the Kidmath Organization of Padne, the authorities of the Kannur University have filed counter affidavit, justifying their Ext.P6 order, granting re-affiliation in favour of the educational agency. 8. The pleadings filed in the writ court clearly show that the Kidmath Organization of Padne and the respondents, including P.K.C. Mohammed Haji (respondent No. 8) are involved in civil litigations, i.e. the O.S. Nos. 241/2008 and 329/2006, pending before the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg. The Kannur University is also participating in those court proceedings, on directions issued by the civil court. In reference to the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the respondents, the learned Judge in the impugned verdict noted that the petitioner inexplicably has failed to produce the Exts.P1 and P2 injunction orders, either before the Tahsildar or even before the District Collector, who respectively issued Exts.P3 and P13 orders, in favour of the Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee, Padne, Kasaragod and against the Kidmath Organization of Padne. The Court then went on to observe that if the petitioner is to secure any advantage of the injunction orders in their favour, necessarily, it has to produce those injunction orders before the Tahsildar and the District Collector, but it failed to do so. 9. Commenting specifically on the Exts.P1 and P2 injunction orders, relied on by the petitioner in the writ proceeding, the learned Judge noted that those are interlocutory orders and the suit proceedings have not attained finality. The court then drew adverse presumption against the petitioners for their failure, to produce the injunction orders before the statutory authorities, who passed Exts.P3 and P13 orders. In any case, the Revision Petition (Ext.P14) filed by the petitioner against the Ext.P13 order of the District Collector, was found to be pending before the Land Revenue Commissioner and accordingly, it was held that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to pursue the said revision and on this basis, the writ court declined to interfere with the two impugned orders. 10. 10. What is also significant is that the learned Judge then perused the records in the case and found that the dispute in the suit proceedings and the subject-matter in the Writ Petition is substantially the same and accordingly it was opined that interference of the writ court could not be justified. Thus, while refusing to grant any relief to the petitioner, all the questions of law and facts were left open to be decided by the civil court. 11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting groups, as also the Government Pleader and the counsel for the Kannur University. The pleadings and the relevant records have also been perused by us. 12. In so far as the impugned orders of the Tahsildar and the District Collector (Exts.P3 and P13), the petitioner has filed a revision and the same is awaiting consideration of the Land Revenue Commissioner. Therefore, the issue should be best decided by the Revisional Authority. Thus we record our agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge that, interference with the impugned orders (Exts.P3 and P13) of the statutory authorities by the writ court, would not be justified. 13. As regards the challenge to the Ext.P6 order, whereby the ownership of Sharaf Arts and Science College, Padne was ordered to be revised in the name of the Educational agency Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee, Padne, Kasaragod, it is apparent that the two rival groups are hotly contesting the authority of the other and such matter should best be decided by the civil court, in the O.S. Nos. 241/2008 and 329/2006, where the interlocutory orders (Exts.P1 and P2) have been passed. The learned Judge rightly observed, in our perception, that these interlocutory orders are tentative and they do not finally determine the rights of the parties. Therefore, we are not inclined to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Judge that interference with the dispute pending in the civil court, would not be justified by the writ court. In our assessment, the writ court correctly declined to interfere, as the very same issue is being adjudicated in the civil court. 14. Following the above discussion and the conclusion, the Writ Appeal is not entertained and the same is dismissed.