ORDER : 1. Petitioners who are tracing title through their father M. Chinnaswamy Mudaliar have filed the captioned petition assailing the order of the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-M and the order passed by the revisional authority/respondent No.2 vide Annexure-N. 2. The present writ petition involves a long- standing dispute with a checkered history. The subject matter of the writ petition relates to 20 guntas of land situated in Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. The petitioners claim to have derived title to the schedule property through their father, late Chinnaswamy Mudaliar, who is said to have purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1959. Pursuant to the said sale, physical possession was delivered to their father, and he is said to have been put in lawful possession. It is further stated that revenue records were duly mutated in his name, and the property was thereafter subjected to taxes and other statutory levies. 3. After acquiring the property, the petitioners’ father is stated to have approached the then City Improvement Trust Board (CITB), which is now the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), seeking permission for formation of a residential layout. The CITB, through its Chairman, is said to have accepted partial payment towards the layout development charges. However, the Bangalore City Corporation (now BBMP) disputed the petitioners’ father's title and possession over the said property, which necessitated initiation of a civil suit in O.S.No.1367/1961, later renumbered as O.S.No.247/1983 . 4. The said suit was contested tooth and nail by the Corporation. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit, declaring that the plaintiffs’ father was the absolute owner and was in lawful possession of the schedule property. The Court also granted a permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with his possession. The said decree was carried in appeal in RFA No.464/1984 and ultimately to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.14864/1986 . However, the judgment of the Trial Court was affirmed by the High Court and subsequently by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition, thereby giving finality to the title and possession of the petitioners’ father. 5. The petitioners have also drawn attention to parallel proceedings initiated by one K. Shanmugam, which eventually culminated in a direction issued by respondent No.2 vide order dated 28.03.2005 (Annexure- G). 5. The petitioners have also drawn attention to parallel proceedings initiated by one K. Shanmugam, which eventually culminated in a direction issued by respondent No.2 vide order dated 28.03.2005 (Annexure- G). In the said proceedings, respondent No.2, adhering to the binding judgment in O.S.No.247/1983 , directed the concerned revenue authorities to act accordingly. Despite this categorical direction, respondent No.3 failed to implement the same. The petitioners were constrained to make repeated representations requesting respondent No.3 to give effect to the order of respondent No.2 and carry out mutation of the property in their favour, in line with the decree of the civil court. Instead of complying, respondent No.3 initiated a fresh enquiry and, surprisingly, called for objections from third parties. 6. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.No.2727/2013, contending that the action of respondent No.3 in initiating a fresh enquiry was wholly unwarranted and contrary to the decree passed in O.S.No.247/1983 , which had attained finality. This Court, by order dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure-L), allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice calling for objections. This Court observed that the title of the petitioners’ father had already been adjudicated conclusively and could not be reopened. 7. However, despite the directions issued by this Court, respondent No.3 took up the matter once again after nearly six months and conducted a spot inspection. Thereafter, respondent No.3 rejected the petitioners’ request for mutation, inter alia, on the ground that the land in question does not fall within Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. It was further held that Sy.Nos.1 and 4 had already been acquired by the Government and developed into residential layouts as part of the Vyalikaval and Malleswaram Extensions by the BDA. It was also observed that entries regarding these lands were already reflected in the City Survey records. Aggrieved by this rejection order dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure-M), the petitioners preferred a revision petition before respondent No.2, which came to be dismissed, thereby confirming the order of respondent No.3. These concurrent orders have been assailed in the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has submitted that despite the conclusive adjudication of title in favour of their father by the competent Civil Court, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the authorities have failed to implement the decree. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has submitted that despite the conclusive adjudication of title in favour of their father by the competent Civil Court, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the authorities have failed to implement the decree. It is submitted that the inaction and continued defiance by the respondents not only violates the principle of finality of judicial proceedings but also amounts to contempt of Court. The learned counsel has relied on additional documents filed with the memo dated 02.02.2025 and has strenuously contended that the repeated refusal to effect mutation is patently illegal and arbitrary. 9. Per contra, the State has filed its detailed statement of objections supported by a synopsis dated 27.02.2025. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, has advanced two-fold arguments. Firstly, it is contended that based on the superimposition sketch prepared by the Enquiry Officer/respondent No.3, the subject land does not correspond to Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. Secondly, it is submitted that the said survey numbers were already acquired by the Government/CITB for formation of a residential layout, and that the petitioners’ father obtained the decree by allegedly suppressing material facts. It is the State’s case that these aspects disentitle the petitioners to the relief sought. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and contentions, the following points arise for consideration before this Court: 1) Whether the impugned order dated 12.11.2014 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure- M) is contrary to and in disregard of the findings and declaration rendered by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.247/1983 ? 2) Whether the respondents, having allowed the matter to attain finality through a judgment of the Civil Court upheld by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, are estopped from re- agitating or disputing the petitioners’ title and possession by asserting that the schedule property does not fall within Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village? Findings on points 1 and 2: 11. The petitioners and their late father have unfortunately been embroiled in litigation since the year 1961. The genesis of the dispute can be traced to the acquisition of the schedule property by the petitioners’ father, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1959. Findings on points 1 and 2: 11. The petitioners and their late father have unfortunately been embroiled in litigation since the year 1961. The genesis of the dispute can be traced to the acquisition of the schedule property by the petitioners’ father, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1959. Following the purchase, the petitioners’ father approached the then City Improvement Trust Board (CITB), presently known as the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), seeking permission to form a residential layout in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. Though the Chairman of the CITB initially accepted part payment towards layout formation, the proposal was subsequently stalled at the instance of the then Commissioner of the Bangalore City Corporation. This obstruction compelled the petitioners’ father to initiate civil proceedings by instituting a suit in O.S.No.1367/1961, which was later renumbered as O.S.No.247/1983 . 12. In this context, the defence taken by the Bangalore City Corporation in the said suit assumes significance. This Court, while adjudicating the Regular First Appeal in RFA No.464/1984 , has succinctly summarized the Corporation’s defence in paragraph 3 of its judgment. Further, the reasoning and findings of the Court are elaborated in paragraph 10. These two paragraphs are central to understanding the nature of the dispute and the issues adjudicated and the same are extracted herein below for ready reference: " 3. The defendant resisted the suit on the following grounds:- ………The plaintiff was not put in possession of the properties by his vendors. It is true that the plaintiff obtained a no objection certificate from the City Improvement Trust Board for forming a layout. He was also called upon to deposit money at Rs.6/- per square yard. It is not known whether the plaintiff has deposited any portion of the said layout charges. The plaintiff has obtained no objection certificate from the City Improvement Trust Board by misrepresenting the facts to it. The City Improvement Trust Board reconsidered the matter in its meeting held on 23-3-1962. The City Improvement Trust Board passed the following resolutions:- "Resolved that (1) as Mr.Chinnaswamy obtained the 'No Objection Certificate' under misrepresentation of facts and since the S.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura for which No Objection Certificate was issued is not the land on which he is forming the lay-out under the regularisation scheme, the No Objection Certificate issued to be cancelled immediately. (2) If Mr.Chinnaswamy desires to reconsider his request for the issue of No Objection Certificate in respect of land on S.Nos. 1 and 4, Jodi Ranga-nathapura, he must substantially prove his title to the land. He must produce the mutation certificate without any conditions attached to it and he must get the boundaries for his lands duly fixed by the Survey and Settlement Department. (3) In case of clause 2 read above, the subject with all details be placed before the Board for consideration. The Corporation of Bangalore be also intimated in this behalf." xxxxxxxx " 10. As can be seen from the written statement of the defendant, the defendant has stated in his written statement as:- "It may be true that there was a sale deed dated 24-6-1959 in favour of the plaintiff executed by Kannamma, Shanmugam and Kadirvelu. It is not correct to say that the schedule land forms part of S. Nos. 1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura village. The land alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff from his vendors is part of the land of water village and that land belongs to the defendant-Corporation." These assertions in the written statement made by the defendant show that the defendant wants to claim title to S.Nos. 1 and 4 of Water Works Village and it does not claim S.Nos. 1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapur village at all." 13. Upon a careful examination of the defence set up by the then Bangalore City Corporation in the suit proceedings, two crucial contentions emerge. Firstly, the primary defence advanced by the Corporation was that the property claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiffs’ father under registered sale deed dated 24.06.1959 did not, in fact, form part of Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. Instead, it was asserted by the Corporation that the land in question fell within the limits of Water Works Village and not within the revenue jurisdiction of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. By taking such a stand, the Corporation essentially denied the plaintiffs’ father’s title by asserting that the lands in question were part of the Water Works Village, over which the Corporation claimed ownership and control. 14. This contention was comprehensively considered and rejected by the Trial Court, which, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs’ father. 14. This contention was comprehensively considered and rejected by the Trial Court, which, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs’ father. The findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court were subsequently affirmed by this Court in RFA No.464/1984 . While concurring with the decision of the Trial Court, this Court made certain significant observations in paragraphs 12 to 15 of its judgment, which go to the root of the controversy. These observations are central to the present dispute and are accordingly extracted herein below for ready reference: "12. The sale deed Exhibit p1 dated 6-2-1935 clearly shows that Annur Desikachar was the Jodidar of Jodi Ranganathapur village and he sold the suit properties to Krishnaswamy Pillay under the said sale deed Exhibit P1 and put Krishnaswamy Pillay in possession thereof. Since a an long time Jodi Ranganathapur village was an unsurveyed village. Therefore the non mention of the revision survey number in the sale deed Exhibit P1 does not disprove the title of the plaintiff. But looking to the boundary description given in the sale deed Exhibit P1, it clearly follows that the suit properties were sold by Annur Desikachar and his sons to Krishnaswamy Pillay under a sale deed Exhibit P1. The defendant does not claim title to S. Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapur village. He claims title to S. Nos. 1 and 4 of Water Works village. In view of the fact that the defendant does not claim any title to S. Nos. 1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapur village and in view of the fact that the sale deed Exhibit P1 clearly transfers the suit properties with clear boundary description to Krishnaswamy Pillay it is clearly established beyond doubt that Annur Desikachar and his sons sold the suit properties in favour of Krishnaswamy Pillay on 6-2-1935. Further the evidence of P.W.1 that Annur Desikachar was in possession of the suit properties and was paying kandayam in respect of the suit properties till the suit properties were sold to his father Krishnaswamy Pillay and that Krishnaswamy Pillay was put in possession of the suit properties on the date of the sale deed Exhibit P1 itself and was paying kandayam thereof till he sold it to the plaintiff, is not controverted by the defendant in the course of the cross-examination of P.W.1. Therefore Krishnaswamy Pillay's title to the properties conveyed under Exhibit P1 is beyond doubt and is unquestionable. That Krishnaswamy Pillay continued to be in possession of the properties conveyed to him under Exhibit P1, is not seriously questioned at all by the defendant. That the properties conveyed under Exhibit P1 are situate in Jodi Ranganathapur village, is not seriously controverted by the defendant, as can be seen from the written statement filed by the defendant himself. Therefore I have no hesitation to hold that Krishnaswamy Pillay's title to the properties conveyed under Exhibit P1 and his possession thereof are beyond doubt. Krishnaswamy Pillay's widow Kann and his two sons Shanmugam P.W.1 and Kadervelu P.W.2 sold the properties to the plaintiff Chinnaswamy Mudaliar for Rs.4,500/- under Exhibit P2 dated 24-6-1959. The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 that they and their mother Kannamma sold the suit properties to the plaintiff for Rs.4,500/- under the sale deed Exhibit P2 dated 24-6-1959; that they put the plaintiff in possession of the suit properties and that the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit properties and was paying kandayam in regard thereto since then, merits to be accepted. The mutation entry Exhibit P3 shows that the suit properties were mutated in the name of the plaintiff immediately after the purchase of the suit properties by him. The Kandayam receipt Exhibit P11 shows that the plaintiff paid Kandayam for 1960-61 in regard to the suit properties. If he had nothing to do with the suit properties, he would not have paid kandayam as per Exhibit P11. ………………" "13. ……………….Exhibit P7 shows that the necessary permission had been accorded to the plaintiff to form the roads in S.Nos. 1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura village and that the work should be carried out under the supervision of the Board. Exhibit P8 is a notice dated 4-12-1961 issued by the defendant Corporation to the plaintiff under Section 232 of the Bangalore Corporation Act to remove the encroachment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The material portion thereof reads as:- "It has been brought to my notice that you have encroached the Corporation vacant land behind Sankey Tank Road (southern side) and forming a layout unauthorisedly. " This notice Exhibit P8 does not speak that the area where the plaintiff was forming the layout, was situate in Water Works village. The material portion thereof reads as:- "It has been brought to my notice that you have encroached the Corporation vacant land behind Sankey Tank Road (southern side) and forming a layout unauthorisedly. " This notice Exhibit P8 does not speak that the area where the plaintiff was forming the layout, was situate in Water Works village. It does not deny the situation of the suit properties in Jodi Ranganathapur village. It does not even show that the suit properties belonged to the defendant and that they are in possession of the defendant. Therefore the notice Exhibit P8 issued by the defendant Corporation itself in a way supports the case of the plaintiff himself." " 14. The Deccan Herald Notification Exhibit P9 reads as:- "Public are hereby informed that a layout is being formed by one Sri M.Chinnaswamy in and round about Survey Nos. 1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapuram, which is said to have been approved by the City Improvement Trust Board. " It further says as:- "A part of the layout is actually on the land belonging to the Water Supply Department and the remaining portion is a water-logged area." Similar is the Notification in Prajavani, Exhibit P10. The Prajavani Notification shows that the area in question is to the south of Sankey Tank Bund road. These two Notification clearly belie the story of the defendant that the suit properties are situate in Water Works Village and that they are not situate in Jodi Ranganathapura Village at all. ……………………………………. By this letter, the Assistant Commissioner requested the Deputy Commissioner, Land Records, to send the revenue sketches of S. Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapur village and to find out whether any area of the Government had been encorached upon. It shows that the surveyor attached to the office of the Assistant Commissioner had expressed his inability to measure the area as it was unsurveyed jodi village. This also supports the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties forming part of S.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapur village belonged to the plaintiff by virtue of the purchase made by him. Exhibit P16 is a reply to Exhibit P15. It is sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Records, to the Assistant Commissioner. It reads as:- "With reference to the above subject, I write to state that K.G. Ranganathapura village, Bangalore North taluk, has not yet been surveyed and settled. Exhibit P16 is a reply to Exhibit P15. It is sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Records, to the Assistant Commissioner. It reads as:- "With reference to the above subject, I write to state that K.G. Ranganathapura village, Bangalore North taluk, has not yet been surveyed and settled. Only valuation survey has been done. The Survey numbers 1 and 4 are classed as dry and entered in the name of Krishnacharya as per pahani sud 1879. The valuation tippans are available. The Tippans of valuation survey are not authenticated and they would only show the state of position then. If necessary the records may be consulted." This also goes to show that even as per the Tippani extracts, S. Nos. 1 and 4 have been shown as standing in the name of Krishnacharya ever since before 1879 onwards. The father of Annur Desikachar who is the vendor under the sale deed Exhibit P1, is Krishnacharya." "15. It is undisputed that the revenue records do not show the existence of the Water Works village at all. It might be that the Water Works Department might be carrying on some work near about Jodi Ranganathapur. But it does not mean that the area where the Water Works Department was carrying on the work, belonged to the Water Works Department or the defendant."(Emphasis supplied) 15. On a close reading of the findings and conclusions recorded by this Court in RFA No.464/1984 , it becomes unequivocally clear that the judgment and decree rendered by the Trial Court in O.S.No.247/1983 , as affirmed by this Court in appeal, conclusively declare that the plaintiffs’ father is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. The Courts have categorically held that the Bangalore City Corporation has no manner of right, title, or interest over the said properties. These concurrent findings of fact and law have attained finality with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in SLP No.14864/1986 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the issue regarding title and lawful possession stands conclusively adjudicated in favour of the plaintiffs’ father and, by necessary implication, in favour of the present petitioners as his legal heirs. 16. In this regard, paragraph 23 of the judgment rendered by this Court in RFA No.464/1984 is particularly significant, as it encapsulates the core reasoning of the appellate Court in affirming the declaration of title. 16. In this regard, paragraph 23 of the judgment rendered by this Court in RFA No.464/1984 is particularly significant, as it encapsulates the core reasoning of the appellate Court in affirming the declaration of title. This Court therefore finds it apposite to extract paragraph 23 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "23. According to the Defendants, Jodi Ranganathapur village was vested in the Government with effect from 1-2-1959 as per the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act . It is true that the sale in favour of the plaintiff under the sale deed Exhibit P2 is subsequent to 1-2-1959. That as can be seen from Exhibit P17 which is an order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, all the lands in Jodi Ranganathapur village had ceased to be agricultural properties long before the introduction of the Inams Abolition Act and almost all the area in Jodi Ranganathapur village was used or was being used for the purpose of house sites and for the purpose of putting up buildings even long before the coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act and that thus the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act did not apply to such non-agricultural areas and that the area in Jodi Ranganathapur village did not become vested in the State Government under the Inams Abolition Act . It is an order passed by the wing of the Government itself. The Government has not disputed that order. None of the claimants in Exhibit P17 appears to have questioned that order. Thus the sale deed Exhibit P2, in my opinion, clearly conveys the title in respect of the suit properties to the plaintiff. Thus the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the plaintiff clearly establishes that the properties in question are siituate in Jodi Ranganathapur village and that Krishnaswamy Pillay who had purchased the properties in dispute in question under the sale deed Exhibit P1 dated 6-2-1935 from the jodidar Annur Desikachar and his sons got clear title to the properties conveyed under Exhibit P1 and that the plaintiff who has purchased the suit properties from the widow and sons of Krishnaswamy Pillay under the sale deed Exhibit P2, got clear title to the properties in dispute. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the defendant has no title to the suit properties or that it was in possession of them at any time or that they were being used as pasture lands by it at any time, thus the trial court was justified in concluding on the strength of the evidence above referred to that the plaintiff had established his title to the suit properties and also had shown that ever since 24-6-1959 the date of the sale deed Exhibit P2 he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. As already shown above, the defendant has not placed before the court any evidence to show that the suit properties are situate in Water Works village or that it has got title to them or that it was in possession of them at any time or that they were being used by it as pasture lands at any time." (Emphasis supplied) 17. Upon a thorough reading of the findings recorded by this Court in RFA No.464/1984 , it is evidently clear that this Court, while referring to the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners’ father marked as Ex.P-2 has categorically held that the said document has effectively conveyed valid title in respect of the schedule properties. This Court has further affirmed the conclusions of the Trial Court, observing in no uncertain terms that the schedule property is indeed located within the revenue jurisdiction of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. It is also clearly held that the vendor under Ex.P-2 had valid and subsisting title to convey the land, and that the petitioners’ father lawfully acquired ownership of the property through the said sale deed. 18. This Court has also made a categorical finding that the then Bangalore City Corporation neither had title nor was in possession of the suit schedule property. These conclusive observations were based on an appraisal of both oral and documentary evidence, and were made in affirmation of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the question of ownership and possession was settled once and for all. 19. The decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.247/1983 and affirmed by this Court in RFA No.464/1984 has attained finality with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in SLP No.14864/1986 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the question of ownership and possession was settled once and for all. 19. The decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.247/1983 and affirmed by this Court in RFA No.464/1984 has attained finality with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in SLP No.14864/1986 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court has given a quietus to the title dispute, and the findings recorded therein are binding on all parties. Despite this, the authorities have taken a diametrically opposite stand in collateral proceedings, particularly in the context of the petitioners’ request for mutation of their names in the property records. 20. This Court is constrained to take serious note of the stand adopted by the respondent authorities in the ancillary proceedings, wherein they have questioned the very title and location of the property, thereby attempting to re-open issues that have already been conclusively adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and affirmed up to the level of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The stand so taken is not only untenable but is also plainly contemptuous in nature, as it flies in the face of binding judicial pronouncements. 21. In order to appreciate the gravity and impropriety of the stand taken by the State and its authorities, it is necessary to extract the relevant portions from the statement of objections filed by the respondents. A perusal of paragraphs 4, 5, and 8 of the objections reveals that the respondents are, in effect, attempting to re-litigate the very same issue of title and location of the property, which has already been put to rest. The relevant excerpts from the said paragraphs are extracted below: "4. The suit was initially filed in the First Munsiff Court, Bangalore, in 1961, and was numbered as O.S. No.1367/61. The Munsiff after recording the evidence decreed the suit regarding declaration, by its judgment and decree dated 19-1-1965 and dismissed the plaintiff's claim regarding damages. The defendant Corporation being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 19-1-1965 approached the appellate court 1.e. II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, with R.A.No.116/65. The lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Munsiff and allowed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated 20th March, 1972 and dismissed the suit. The defendant Corporation being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 19-1-1965 approached the appellate court 1.e. II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, with R.A.No.116/65. The lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Munsiff and allowed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated 20th March, 1972 and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 20th March, 1972, passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, approached this Court with R.S.A.No.941 of 1972. The plaintiff produced a copy of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. during the pendency of Second Appeal. This Court by its judgment and decree dated 31-7-1978 allowed the additional evidence produced by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and set aside the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal with the following observations:- "The respondent Corporation has no objection for allowing the application filed by the appellant in this Hon'ble Court and remanding the matter after setting aside the decrees of the courts below and affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence. It must be stated that if the additional evidence is permitted, the matter must go back for further investigation and the appeal could not be disposed of by us. The Corporation itself since has no objection, our task has become easier. We record the memo, allow this appeal, set aside the decrees of the courts below and remand the matter to the court of first instance to admit the additional evidence produced by the plaintiff in this Court and dispose of the suit after affording further opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence if they so desire. The additional evidence produced by the appellant in this Court shall be transmitted to the trial court as expeditiously as possible along with this order." "5. It appears that there was also a Miscellaneous Second Appeal in M.S.A.No.9 of 1968 arising out of the same proceedings. As can be seen from the order sheet maintained in the trial court, it appears that M.S.A.No.9 of 1968 was disposed of on 3-3-1969 and the appeal had been remanded to the appellate court. Since then the matter had remained in cold storage. " "8. As can be seen from the order sheet maintained in the trial court, it appears that M.S.A.No.9 of 1968 was disposed of on 3-3-1969 and the appeal had been remanded to the appellate court. Since then the matter had remained in cold storage. " "8. The arguments of the learned counsel Shri.Shiva Prakash for the appellant and of Shri K.S.Ramadas for the plaintiff-respondent were heard. The sole point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff proves his title to the suit properties." 22. Upon perusal of the defence set up by the State in the statement of objections, this Court is more than satisfied that the respondent authorities have failed to show the requisite deference and respect to a judgment rendered by a competent Civil Court, which has been subsequently affirmed by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. What is more disconcerting is that the stand now taken by the authorities is not only contrary to the settled legal position but also directly contradicts the legal opinion obtained by the BBMP itself from one of its empanelled legal advisors. The said legal opinion, placed on record along with the memo of additional documents dated 02.02.2025, clearly states that in view of the conclusive declaration of title in favour of the petitioners’ father in O.S.No.247/1983 , the BBMP no longer retains any claim over the schedule property. The legal advisor has unequivocally opined that, as the title of M. Chinnaswamy Mudaliar has attained finality, the City Survey authorities are duty-bound to carry out the necessary mutation in accordance with the survey measurements undertaken, and that there exists no legal impediment to effectuate the change of katha. 23. A conjoint reading of the statement of objections and the synopsis filed by the State clearly reveals that the conduct of the respondent authorities in persisting with a wholly untenable position borders on administrative obstinacy and legal defiance. Such conduct, especially in the face of binding judicial pronouncements, is grossly unfair and deserves to be condemned in the strongest possible terms by this Court. 24. It must also be noted that before the Civil Court, the exact location and identification of the schedule property was extensively addressed. The boundaries and survey numbers were elaborately discussed, and significantly, identification of the property was never in dispute during the civil proceedings. 24. It must also be noted that before the Civil Court, the exact location and identification of the schedule property was extensively addressed. The boundaries and survey numbers were elaborately discussed, and significantly, identification of the property was never in dispute during the civil proceedings. The records reveal that the petitioners’ father had paid taxes in respect of the schedule property for the year 1960-61, which is evidenced by Ex.P-11 in the civil proceedings. Mutation entries were also produced and taken into account. The Trial Court acknowledged the possession of the plaintiffs’ father, and such possession stood corroborated by several documents. Ex.P-5 is a challan submitted by the petitioners’ father seeking permission for layout formation; Ex.P-7 is the permission accorded by the Chairman of the Board to form a residential layout specifically in Sy.Nos.1 and 4 and Ex.P-8 is a notice issued in connection with the layout development, which also refers to the same lands. Furthermore, the plaint schedule furnished in the civil suit gave a clear and unambiguous description of the property in question. This description, which stood accepted by the Civil Court, has been affirmed all the way up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, there is absolutely no ambiguity regarding the identity or location of the schedule property. 25. In light of the conclusive findings recorded by the Civil Court and affirmed by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court proceeds to examine the reasons assigned by respondent No.3 while rejecting the petitioners’ claim. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that respondent No.3 has rejected the petitioners’ request for mutation on the sole premise that the schedule property does not fall within Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. Respondent No.3 has further observed that the lands in question have already been acquired by the Government for the purpose of forming Vyalikaval and Malleshwaram extensions through the BDA, and that the area is now fully developed with buildings having come up. 26. These observations are not only contrary to the judicial findings recorded by the Civil Court, but are also contrary to the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners. The assertion that Sy.Nos.1 and 4 have been acquired stands refuted by the additional documents produced at Annexure-S, which include a Joint Inspection Report. 26. These observations are not only contrary to the judicial findings recorded by the Civil Court, but are also contrary to the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners. The assertion that Sy.Nos.1 and 4 have been acquired stands refuted by the additional documents produced at Annexure-S, which include a Joint Inspection Report. This Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the said Joint Inspection Report tendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which clearly discredits the claim of prior acquisition. The relevant portion of the report is culled out and extracted as under: In view of the foregoing reasons, point Nos.1 and 2 formulated above are answered in the affirmative. 27. Conclusions: (i) Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the material placed on record, including the pleadings, documentary evidence, the orders impugned in the writ petition, and more importantly, the judgments rendered by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.247/1983 , affirmed by this Court in RFA No.464/1984 and subsequently by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.14864/1986 , this Court is left with no manner of doubt that the issue relating to the title and possession of the schedule property stands conclusively adjudicated in favour of the petitioners’ father. (ii) The findings recorded in the civil proceedings are comprehensive and leave no room for ambiguity. The Civil Court has categorically declared that the petitioners’ father was the absolute owner of the schedule property situated in Sy.Nos.1 and 4 of Jodi Ranganathapura Village. It was further held that the Bangalore City Corporation had no title or possession over the said land. These findings, having been upheld at all appellate levels, have attained finality and bind the parties to the lis, including the successors and instrumentalities of the State. (iii) Despite the authoritative pronouncement by the civil Court, and its affirmation by the constitutional Courts, the respondent authorities have repeatedly and consciously chosen to ignore the binding nature of the judgment and have instead attempted to reopen settled issues under the guise of administrative enquiry. The impugned orders passed by respondent No.3, and affirmed by respondent No.2, are not only in direct conflict with the judicial findings but also amount to a collateral attack on the civil decree which has long since attained finality. The impugned orders passed by respondent No.3, and affirmed by respondent No.2, are not only in direct conflict with the judicial findings but also amount to a collateral attack on the civil decree which has long since attained finality. (iv) This Court is particularly disturbed by the fact that the respondents have set up a defence that is materially identical to the defence raised and repelled in the civil suit. By attempting to question the identity and location of the schedule property, and by asserting an acquisition over lands which have been adjudicated upon, the respondents are in effect re-litigating matters that are barred by the principles of res judicata. Such conduct by public authorities undermines the sanctity of judicial decisions and shakes the very foundation of rule of law. (v) What aggravates the situation is the fact that the respondent authorities have taken a stand that is not only inconsistent with the judgment of the civil Court but is also contrary to the legal opinion tendered by their own empanelled counsel. The said legal opinion, placed on record along with the memo dated 02.02.2025, clearly advises the authorities to respect the declaration of title and to proceed with mutation in favour of the petitioners. The wilful disregard of such legal advice and the deliberate act of passing orders in the teeth of binding judicial pronouncements speaks volumes about the arbitrary and high-handed conduct of the respondents. (vi) The entire course of action adopted by the respondents reflects a clear abuse of power and administrative overreach. It evidences a conscious attempt to defeat the lawful rights of the petitioners flowing from a decree of a competent Court. Such conduct is not only impermissible in law but also amounts to contemptuous disregard of judicial discipline. Public authorities, especially when discharging quasi-judicial or administrative functions, are expected to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. The conduct displayed in the present case falls woefully short of these standards. (vii) This Court is therefore of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by respondent No.3, dated 12.11.2014, and the order passed by respondent No.2 affirming the same, are liable to be quashed for being arbitrary, perverse, and in gross violation of the binding judgment of the competent Civil Court. 28. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a mere case of administrative error or bona fide misunderstanding. 28. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a mere case of administrative error or bona fide misunderstanding. The conduct of the respondent authorities in repeatedly denying the petitioners their lawful rights, despite conclusive adjudication, amounts to harassment and a gross abuse of authority. Such conduct deserves to be deprecated in no uncertain terms and calls for exemplary costs. 29. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER : (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-M as well as the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 18.02.2016 vide Annexure-N affirming the same, are hereby quashed. (iii) The respondents are hereby directed to forthwith give effect to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.247/1983 and affirmed in RFA No.464/1984 and SLP No.14864/1986 , by mutating the names of the petitioners in respect of the schedule property in the relevant revenue and survey records, including the property register/card maintained by the City Survey Department. Such action shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iv) Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) is imposed on-respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally, for having wilfully and repeatedly acted contrary to binding judicial decisions and for causing-unnecessary hardship and prolonged litigation to the petitioners.