ORDER : 1. These two writ petitions relate to the same property and therefore, both the petitions are taken up together for disposal. 2. In W.P. No.13402/2022, the petitioners have challenged the endorsement dated 15.06.2022 issued by respondent No.3, as evidenced at Annexure-A. By the said endorsement, respondent No.3 has issued a show cause notice directing the petitioners to appear on 22.06.2022 at 3:30 p.m. and produce all relevant documents pertaining to the schedule property. 3. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioners have filed a fresh writ petition in W.P. No.16245/2025, challenging the final order dated 14.03.2025 passed by respondent No.1 – the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru. The said order, passed under Section 134 of the BBMP Act, 2020, concludes that Site No.1, Byatarayanapura, bearing CMC Khatha No.445/15/1 and formed in Sy. No.15/1 situated at Koti Hosahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, is a Corporation property. Consequently, the Khatha issued in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for BBMP. 5. In light of the final order dated 14.03.2025 impugned in W.P. No.16245/2025, the writ petition in W.P. No.13402/2022 challenging the earlier show cause notice issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer stands rendered infructuous. Therefore, the focus of this Court is confined to examining the legality of the final order passed by the Regional Commissioner, which is produced at Annexure-A in W.P. No.16245/2025. 6. Upon perusal of the records, it is noted that the petitioners claim title to Site No.1 through the original owner, one Munithimmaiah and his brother. They rely on a registered sale deed dated 05.11.2004 executed by the subsequent transferees, namely G.R. Ramesh and Jayesh L.M. Nagda, who in turn had purchased the property from the original owners. 7. The petitioners further assert that 22 guntas in Sy. No.15/1 was never subjected to acquisition. In support of this, they place reliance on a resolution passed by the CQAL Housing Building Co-operative Society, the beneficiary of the acquisition, which confirms that the said extent of 22 guntas was not acquired. This stand is further supported by an endorsement issued by the BDA, which has been produced along with the written submissions. 8. In support of this, they place reliance on a resolution passed by the CQAL Housing Building Co-operative Society, the beneficiary of the acquisition, which confirms that the said extent of 22 guntas was not acquired. This stand is further supported by an endorsement issued by the BDA, which has been produced along with the written submissions. 8. Though learned counsel Sri.Bathe Gowda K.V., appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, contended that the Regional Commissioner is empowered under Section 134 of the BBMP Act, 2020 to scrutinize title documents and pass orders, this Court is of the considered view that such authority is curtailed in the present case. This is particularly in view of the affidavit filed by the Commissioner in Contempt Case No.819/2021, wherein the BBMP voluntarily accepted the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court in respect of 22 guntas of land, especially since multiple suits concerning the said land are already pending. 9. Although learned counsel for the respondents argued that the pending civil suits are merely for injunction, the record reveals that in those proceedings, several site owners have filed applications for impleadment and, by way of amendment, have sought declaratory reliefs based on their respective sale deeds. Given the Commissioner’s undertaking to await the outcome of these suits, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Regional Commissioner is unsustainable. Even though this Court refrains from expressing any conclusive opinion on the scope of enquiry under Section 134 of the BBMP Act, 2020 in the context of competing title claims, the undertaking given in the contempt proceedings binds the BBMP to await adjudication by the civil courts. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the Regional Commissioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. However, it is clarified that BBMP’s right to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 134 of the BBMP Act, 2020 is reserved and shall abide by the final outcome of the pending civil suits. 11. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER : (i) W.P. No.16245/2025 is allowed. (ii) The final order dated 14.03.2025 passed by respondent No.1, as per Annexure-A, is hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER : (i) W.P. No.16245/2025 is allowed. (ii) The final order dated 14.03.2025 passed by respondent No.1, as per Annexure-A, is hereby quashed. (iii) It is clarified that the right of BBMP to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 134 of the BBMP Act, 2020 is reserved and shall be subject to the result of the pending civil suits. (iv) W.P.No.13402/2022 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.