ORDER : The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.36/2016 and order dated 23.04.2015 passed by Respondent No.4 in RTS/AP-127/2013-14. 2. The third respondent/Deputy Commissioner under Annexure-G dated 15.06.2017 rejected the revision petition of the petitioners filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 observing that the parties would be bound by the decision in R.A.No.22/2009, which is pending consideration before the District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. The names of the respondents were mutated in respect of the land in question in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.22/2007. Against the said judgment, the petitioners herein had filed R.A.No.22/2009 and the same is pending consideration. 3. Admittedly, civil disputes are pending between the parties in respect of the properties in question. The respondent No.1 had initially filed O.S. No.125/1996 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jamakhandi for the relief of declaration and possession, which was decreed in favour of the respondent No.1 herein. The said judgment and decree was challenged in Regular Appeal which was dismissed, against which Regular Second Appeal was filed before this Court. In the Regular Second Appeal, this Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the suit was renumbered before the Civil Judge, Bilagi in view of establishment of Civil Judge Court at Bilagi, as O.S. No.22/2007. The suit was again decreed in favour of respondent No.1 and the petitioners herein have filed R.A.No.22/2009. In view of the pendency of the civil proceedings in respect of title, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner rightly rejected the appeal of the petitioner observing that as R.A. No.22/2009 is pending between the parties, the decision that would be rendered binds the parties. 4. The Full Bench decision of this Court in W.P.No.6872/2013 decided on 24.01.2020 has held in a similar situation that the judgment and decree to be passed would be binding on the parties. Relevant declaration at para106, reads as follows: “ DECLARATION 106. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons stated above, we hereby declare that:- i) The revenue authorities viz., the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties in respect of the immoveable property/properties. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons stated above, we hereby declare that:- i) The revenue authorities viz., the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties in respect of the immoveable property/properties. It is the exclusive domain of the competent Civil Court to adjudicate the dispute/title in respect of the immoveable property/properties and ultimately if any decree to be passed by the competent Civil Court will be binding on the parties as well as the revenue authorities in the State; ii) Any order passed by the jurisdictional Tahsildar under the provisions of Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act touches the title in respect of the immoveable properties, there is no need for the aggrieved party to file an appeal/revision before the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner as it is a futile exercise and therefore, the aggrieved party can straightaway approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of title and consequential relief and the judgment and decree to be passed will be binding on the parties to the lis as well as the Revenue Authorities; iii) Any person aggrieved by the order passed by the jurisdiction Tahsildar exercising powers under the provisions of Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act regarding entries based on the source of title and if there is no dispute with regard to title, then only an appeal/revision can be filed before the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 136(2) and 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.” 5. In view of the above decision, I find no error or illegality in the order passed by the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.36/2016. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.