The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to interfere with an appellate order made under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition presented by sri Murugharajendra Bruhan Mutt of chitradurga, in which the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Coorg, made under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964, ('the act' for short), the following question of law arises for consideration :"whether under sub-section 3 of section 136 of the Act, the Deputy commissioner has the power to interfere with an appellate order made by the authority exercising the appellate power under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act ?"

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : Large extent of agricultural and forest lands in the district of coorg had been granted to the petitioner-mutt in the year 1796 AD by the then Maharaja of Coorg. This is evidenced by copper plate grants, the contents of which have been published in epigraphic Karnataka Vol. 1 at page 12 (Exhibit-B ). There were two branches of the petitioner-mutt called 'abbi Mutt' and 'madapura Mutt', situated in the district of Coorg. The agent of these two branch Mutts resides at Belur village in the district of Coorg and that building in which the agent resides is called 'belur Mutt'. All along in the revenue records and in the record of rights, as against the column 'owner of the lands in question' either Abbi Mutt or Madapura Mutt was shown as the owner. There is no dispute that Abbi mutt and Madapura Mutt are the branches and the agent of these two mutts is also the agent, of the petitioner-Mutt. The petitioner considered that instead of the name of Abbi Mutt and Madapura Mutt being shown in the revenue records as the owner, it is better that the principal mutt, namely, the petitioner-mutt is shown as the owner of the lands. In the circumstances, the power of attorney holder of the petitioner-mutt by an application dated 11th August 1968, requested the Tahsildar to change the Khata in the name of the petitioner-mutt to avoid any complications in future. As respondents 4 to 26 raised some objections, the tahsildar registered the application as a disputed case as provided under Section 129 (3) of the Act. Thereafter the tahsildar who is the authority prescribed to decide the dispute under sub-section (4) of Section 129 of the Act issued notice to the parties and made an order on 11-3-1970 rejecting the application of the petitioner. Copies of these orders are produced aa Exhibits-S and T in the petition. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the assistant Commissioner who is the prescribed authority under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner heard the appeal and made an order on 28-4-1973 allowing the appeal and directed the entry of the name of the petitioner-Mutt in respect of the lands in question. Copy of that order is produced as Exhibit-U in the petition. Respondents 4 to 26 preferred revision petition against the said order to the deputy Commissioner. The Deputy commissioner by his order dated 15-7-1976 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Tahsildar. Aggrieve dby the said order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition contending that under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act the deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against the order of the appellate authority made under sub-section (2) of section 136 of the Act. It is in these circumstances, the question of law set out first arises for consideration.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it is necessary to set out the contents of the provisions of Chapter XI of the Act, which regulates the making of the entry in the record of Rights. Section 127 of the act deals with the preparation of reco d of rights according to the prescribed procedure. According to sub-section (3) of Section 127 of the Act, the record of rights so prepared and