Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.:— The petitioner's grievance is that his representation, dated 3.10.2013 (Annexure-A) for the restoration of status quo ante in the revenue records has remained unconsidered. Further, the petitioner has also sought the order restraining the Special Tahsildar from effecting the khatha and the revenue records in the name of the respondent No. 5 in respect of the schedule property.
2. Heard Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T.L Kiran Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. l to 4 and Sri. N. Jagadish Baliga, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.
3. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 4 to consider the petitioner's said representation in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of three months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order. Needless to observe that the respondent No. 4 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 and also to any other person interested in the lands in question. It is for the respondent No. 4 to take a decision in the matter as to whether the entries in the revenue records are to be in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the respondent No. 5 or in favour of any other third Party. The petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are at liberty to urge all the contentions before the Special Tahsildar.
4. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
5. Now that the main matter itself is disposed of, I.A No. 1/2016 is dismissed as having become unnecessary. To safeguard the interests of both the Parties, I deem it necessary to continue the effect of the interim order of status quo granted on 24.5.2016 for a period of three months or till the date of the disposal of the petitioner's representation, whichever is earlier.