ORDER : 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 13.03.2023 passed in R.P.No.166/2016-17 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, one Peter David was the absolute owner in possession of the land to an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.2 of Bikashipura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk as per the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1957. It is also stated that, pursuant to the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1957, the revenue records stands in the name of Sri. Peter David. It is stated that, the petitioner herein is the legal heir to Peter David as the said Peter David, was a bachelor. It is also stated that, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and one Smt. Grace Vinodini claiming as predecessor of late P.S.Chinnappa and Smt. D.A.Sumithra, jointly acquired the land measuring 103 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.1, 2 and 8 of Bikashpura village as per the registered Sale Deed dated 30.11.1954 and thereafter, the land was sold in favour of one Ranga Rao, Chief Secretary of Government of Mysore as per registered Sale Deed dated 21.03.1935 and same was prior to the Sale Deed dated 30.11.1954. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the mutation was effected in the name of Peter David in pursuance of the Sale Deed and his name was not entered in the RTC. Thereafter the petitioner has given application to respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has issued an Endorsement stating to approach the respondent No.2 and accordingly the petitioner has filed R.A.(S)No.282/2011-12 (Annexure-C) wherein, the respondent No.2 by order dated 19.03.2012 has quashed the Endorsement dated 07.02.2009 and directed the respondent No.3 to enter the name of the late Peter David in the revenue records in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1957 and thereafter the revenue records are standing in the name of said Peter David. 3. It is further contended in the writ petition that, the respondent No.3 had initiated suo-moto proceedings in R.A.No.187/2014-15, before the respondent No.2 in respect of the subject land in Sy.No.2 and the said Appeal came to be allowed by the respondent No.2 and directed to delete entries made in favour of late P.S.Chinnappa and others (father of the respondent Nos. It is further contended in the writ petition that, the respondent No.3 had initiated suo-moto proceedings in R.A.No.187/2014-15, before the respondent No.2 in respect of the subject land in Sy.No.2 and the said Appeal came to be allowed by the respondent No.2 and directed to delete entries made in favour of late P.S.Chinnappa and others (father of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6) and directed to respondent No.3 to enter the name as "Government" in the revenue entries. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the respondent No.1 herein ought not to have remanded the matter to the respondent No.2 to look into the order produced at Annexure-C wherein the respondent No.2 has rightly passed the order by directing the respondent No.3 to enter the name of Sri. Peter David in the revenue records in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1957. Being aggrieved by the order of remand at Annexure-A, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. Sudhakar G.V. learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Savithramma, learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri. Anirudh M.B, learned counsel for Sri. George Joseph, Smt. Priya D. Khale, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Sri. M.G. Srinatha Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 7 to 11. 5. Sri. R.S.Ravi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the order at Annexure-E dated 05.05.2015 and contended that, unless the said order has been modified or quashed by the competent authority wherein the name of P.S. Chinnappa and others have been deleted from the khatha extracts and therefore, the said order is operating against the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein without being challenged the same and therefore the order of remand made by the respondent No.1 is non est which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. 6. 5 and 6 herein without being challenged the same and therefore the order of remand made by the respondent No.1 is non est which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. 6. Learned Senior counsel further refers to the order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-C and submitted that, the respondent No.2, considering the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1957 has ordered for enter the name of petitioner herein in the revenue records and same is in accordance with law and therefore he contended that, interfering with the said order at Annexure-C by the respondent No.1 is contrary to law and same has to be interfered with in the writ petition. He further contended that, by referring to the proceedings in O.S.No.5531/1996 at Annexure-L and submitted that, the claim made by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein, amounts to the admission insofar as the measurement of land in question is concerned and therefore, pointing out to the schedule in the said plaint, learned Senior counsel submitted that, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein have nothing to do with Sy.No.2 of Bikashpura even otherwise their prayer is only insofar as the 4 guntas of land is concerned and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 7. Sri. M.G.Srinath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 11 submits that, the father of the respondents had acquired the schedule property as per registered Sale Deed dated 30.11.1954 and therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-C has been passed without hearing the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein and therefore, the respondent No.1 has rightly remitted the matter to the respondent No.2 and accordingly sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Smt. Savithramma, learned AGA submitted in favour of the impugned order and stating that, the order of remand has been made to provide fair opportunity to all the parties concerned and therefore submitted that, no interference is called for in this writ petition. 9. 8. Smt. Savithramma, learned AGA submitted in favour of the impugned order and stating that, the order of remand has been made to provide fair opportunity to all the parties concerned and therefore submitted that, no interference is called for in this writ petition. 9. Having taken note of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner herein is claiming right in respect of land in question in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 10.10.1957 made in favour of one Peter David and the said Peter David was a bachelor and on his demise the petitioner herein is the legal heir insofar as the petition schedule property to an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.2 in Bikashpura village. On the other hand, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein are claiming right in respect of subject land as their father had purchased the said land as per registered sale deed dated 30.11.1954. In that view of the matter, though the order insofar as Annexure-E in unchallenged by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein are concerned, however, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have right insofar as the subject land is concerned based on the Sale Deed dated 30.11.1954 and thereafter, respondent No.1 rightly remitted the matter to the respondent No.2 to reconsider the issue afresh after hearing parties concerned and take decision in the matter in accordance with law. 10. In that view of the matter, insofar as the order of remand is concerned this Court is having limited jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the respondent No.2 in R.A. (S) No.282/2011-12 (Annexure-C). 11. It is open for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein to file impleading application before the respondent No.2 to agitate their right in the matter. With this observation, petition is dismissed.