( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, dated 2-9-1992, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein, thereby, directing the Tahsildar to enter the name of the 2nd respondent along with the petitioner in the Revenue Records.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to this filing of writ petition, are as follows: petitioner's father was a tenant of the schedule lands and upon his application in Form 7 to the Land Tribunal, the Land tribunal has registered him as an occupant of the land in conformity with Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ('the Act' for short ). Petitioner's father died on 3-10-1982, leaving behind him a Will, bequeathing the schedule lands in the name of the petitioner. After the death of his father, petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Tahsildar for changing the katha of the lands in his name and as per the Will, the Deputy tahsildar has passed an order directing to change the katha in the name of the petitioner as per Annexure-B.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that after the death of his father he continued to be in possession of the property and cultivating the lands. The petitioner has two sisters who are married long prior to the date of death of his father and are staying with their husbands. They were never in possession and enjoyment of the lands. The 1st respondent is the son of the petitioner's deceased sister, the 2nd respondent is another sister. They have no interest in the property. The objection for entering their names has been overruled by the Deputy Tahsildar, but the appeal preferred by the respondents before the Assistant commissioner was not properly defended by him for the reasons stated in the writ petition and that the Assistant Commissioner. Puttur-the 3rd respondent however allowed the appeal and directed the Deputy Tahsildar to enter the name of the 2nd respondent also jointly with the petitioner in all the Revenue records.

( 4 ) IT is contended that the Assistant Commissioner has clearly erred in passing the impugned order in spite of the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the property by virtue of the Will left behind by his father. It is further contended that the Assistant commissioner has committed an error directing him to approach the Civil Court as there is a dispute regarding the title of the property.

( 5 ) REITERATING the said grounds of writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 3rd respondent has committed an error in passing the impugned order even though they have no subsisting interest in the property and the order does not stand to reason as there is a direction to enter the name of the 2nd respondent only and not the 1st respondent.

( 6 ) SRI M. Rambhat-learned Counsel for the respondents has raised two important contentions for consideration. The first contention is that the writ petition is not maintainable against the final order of the Assistant Commissioner and secondly that the tenant who is conferred with occupancy rights cannot transfer by Will the property as there is a prohibition under section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the alleged Will, left behind by the deceased has no validity in law. Even otherwise the order of the Assistant Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality which requires to be quashed.

( 7 ) IN support of the first contention the learned Counsel has relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in srimanmaharaja Niranjana Jagadguru Mallikarjuna murugharajendra Mahaswamy Matadipathy v Deputy commissioner, Coorg. The Division Bench has considered the scope and the ambit of Section 136 (2) and (3) of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964 and held that the Deputy commissioner has no power under sub-section (3) to