JUDGMENT : K. S. HEMALEKHA, J. This intra Court appeal arises out of the dismissal of W.P.No.201905/2023 dated 30.08.2023 by the learned Single Judge, wherein the challenge to the order dated 22.06.2023 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar preferred by the appellants herein was affirmed whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.01.2023, which had set aside the Mutation Order No.27/1998-99 and Mutation No.3/2013-14. 2. The genealogy of the parties is culled out here for ready reference : 3. Gundappa, the original propositus was survived by his wife Kallamma and two daughters namely, Saraswati and Bhagirathibai. Saraswati had six children and Bhagirathibai who was married to one Manikappa died issueless. The brother of Manikappa is one Subhash who is respondent No.3 in the present proceedings. The land bearing Sy. No.45/A, measuring 02 acres 27 guntas of Mailoor village, Tq. & Dist. Bidar (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’ for short) was originally in the joint name of Bhagirathibai and Manikappa under the Mutation Order No.27/1998-99. After the demise of Bhagirathibai, through Mutation Order No.3/2013-14, subject property was mutated in the name of respondent No.3. The appellants are the daughters of Saraswati, sister of Bhagirathibai. 4. The case of the appellants is that, respondent No.3 illegally and fraudulently got his name mutated in the revenue records of the subject property without any legal right, title or interest and behind the back of the appellants who are the legal heirs of the original propositus Gundappa through their mother Saraswati. 5. The brothers of the appellants (respondent Nos.4 to 6) had earlier filed O.S.No.59/2016 seeking declaration of title and injunction in respect of the subject property, the said suit came to be dismissed on 16.09.2020 and the dismissal of suit was confirmed in R.A.No.67/2020 by judgment dated 08.11.2022. The Assistant Commissioner, Bidar upon allowing the appeal filed by the appellants held that the Mutation Entry No.27/1998-99 dated 09.03.1998 and Mutation No.03/2013-14 dated 31.10.2013 in respect of the subject property were liable to be set aside. The Assistant Commissioner observed that none of the parties had obtained any declaratory decree from Civil Court or produced any legal heir certificate substantiating their title over the subject property. It was further held that, in respect of the subject property, the parties have already approached the Civil Court and litigation regarding their respective rights is presently pending adjudication. The Assistant Commissioner observed that none of the parties had obtained any declaratory decree from Civil Court or produced any legal heir certificate substantiating their title over the subject property. It was further held that, in respect of the subject property, the parties have already approached the Civil Court and litigation regarding their respective rights is presently pending adjudication. The Assistant Commissioner directed that the entries in the revenue of records relating to the subject property be restored to the status prior to the impugned mutations, until the disposal of pending civil suit and the Thasildar, Bidar was directed to implement this restoration and submit compliance report. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bidar, respondent No.3 preferred revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision, setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and observed that civil suit in O.S. No.59/2016 filed by brothers of the appellants (respondent Nos.4 to 6) seeking declaration of title, had already been dismissed and the same has been confirmed in R.A.No.67/2020. Relying upon the finality of the Civil Court’s finding, the Deputy Commissioner held that there was no basis for setting aside the mutation entries and accordingly reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order before this Court. The learned Single Judge affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.59/2016 as confirmed in R.A.No.67/2020 has attained finality. 7. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that after the death of their mother, Bhagirathibai along with her husband Manikappa got their name entered in the revenue records of the subject property and the name of the respondent No.2 was entered without any legal right after the death of Bhagirathibai. It is asserted that Bhagirathibai and Manikappa died issueless. The original holder of the subject property was Gundappa, after his death the name of Kallamma was entered. On death of Kallamma W/o Gundappa, the two daughters Saraswati (mother of appellants and sister of Bhagirathibai) would inherit the subject property. It is further contended that on death of Bhagirathibai, the subject property would revert to the legal heirs of Bhagirathibai, namely her sister Saraswati’s children i.e., the appellants. On death of Kallamma W/o Gundappa, the two daughters Saraswati (mother of appellants and sister of Bhagirathibai) would inherit the subject property. It is further contended that on death of Bhagirathibai, the subject property would revert to the legal heirs of Bhagirathibai, namely her sister Saraswati’s children i.e., the appellants. It is contended that Subhash – respondent No.3, the brother of Manikappa has got his name mutated in the revenue records showing himself as joint owner along with Bhagirathibai, and later as the sole successor, the mutation effected in his name was behind their back and without their notice. It is contended that the restoration of revenue records to the original stage prior to the mutation effected in favour of Bhagirathibai, Manikappa and respondent No.3 by the Assistant Commissioner is justified. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 contends that the mutation entry in his favour is based on the registered Will executed by Bhagirathibai, the original joint holder of the subject property with her husband Manikappa. The name of respondent No.3 stands in his name since 1998 and nearly after two decades the appellants have challenged the mutation entry before the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant’s brothers had filed O.S.No.59/2016 for declaration and permanent injunction which came to be dismissed on merits confirmed in R.A. No.67/2020 and the judgment has attained finality. The Assistant Commissioner while allowing the appeal of the appellants failed to consider the order passed by the Civil Court. The Deputy Commissioner rightly re- appreciated and restored the name of respondent No.3 in the mutation record which has been rightly affirmed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that civil suit in O.S.No.255/2024 is filed by the appellants for partition and separate possession in respect of the subject property and also for a declaration declaring that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.59/2016 is not binding upon them is pending consideration and hence it is contended that the existing mutation and revenue entries cannot be undone unless and until a competent Civil Court passes a decree in their favour. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions urged by both sides and carefully perused the material on record. Upon perusal, we find that appellants claim succession through their mother Saraswati, the sister of deceased Bhagirathibai, who jointly held the subject property with her husband Manikappa. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions urged by both sides and carefully perused the material on record. Upon perusal, we find that appellants claim succession through their mother Saraswati, the sister of deceased Bhagirathibai, who jointly held the subject property with her husband Manikappa. They died issueless, and the name of respondent No.3 – Subhash, brother of Manikappa was mutated in the revenue records through Mutation Order No.27/1998-99. The appellants challenged the said mutation after a decade. Though they contend that the mutation was made behind their back and claim inheritance rights, no material is produced to evidence their rights. Respondent No.3 asserts that the mutation was lawfully done based on a Will and continued possession, which remains undisturbed. Earlier, the appellants’ brothers (Respondent Nos.4 to 6) has filed O.S.No.59/2016 seeking declaration and injunction over the subject property, which was dismissed and affirmed in appeal in R.A.No.67/2020 and has attained finality. Though the appellants now claim to have filed O.S.No.255/2024 seeking partition and declaration that the judgment in O.S.No.59/2016 is not binding on them, the pendency of the subsequent suit does not entitle them to disturb long standing mutation entries or seek revenue rectification without a declaration of title from a Competent Court. In the absence of any legal right and title in their favour the Deputy Commissioner rightly reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the order of the Deputy Commissioner has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, accordingly we find no merit in the appeal and we pass the following: ORDER Writ appeal is hereby dismissed.