This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India dated 26-4-2004 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in Revision Petition No. 28 of 2002-03 at Annexure-J by restoring the revenue in entries in favour of the petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 47/1, Balagere Village in Varthur Hobli to the extent of 1 acre 34 guntas.

2. Having heard the learned Counsels for both the parties the short point that arises for consideration and determination is, whether the order under challenge passed by the Revenue Authorities without appreciating the contentions taken by the petitioner over the knowledge of the orders passed are liable to be quashed.

3. It is seen that petitioner-Muniyappa is stated to be the nephew of one Yellamma through whom he claims to be the owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 47/1 situated at Balagere Village, Varthur Hobli, hangalore South Taluk, Bangalore to the extent of 1 acre 34 guntas. In order to show that she was the owner and in possession of the said item of the land, the petitioner has produced the documents like record of rights, mutation extracts and her name has been continued till 1982-83 in the concerned records. This fact has not been seriously disputed by the contesting respondents. During the year 1983-84 till 1987-88 the name of the petitioner has been entered in Columns 9 and 12(2) shown both as a cultivator and owner in possession. Likewise name of one Patel Ramaiah Reddy the father of 5th respondent is also entered against Column 9 as per M.R No. 5/84-85 but his son's name has not been shown against Column 12(2). During the year 1984-85 upto 1987-88 though his name has been shown against Column 9 this fact has been clearly mentioned in Annexure-B the record of rights produced by the petitioner. Subsequently, the name of the petitioner has been deleted and Ramaiah Reddy's name has been entered in both Columns 9 and 12(2) and record of rights Annexure-K for the year 1988-89 in the mutation M.R No. 5/84-85. However, the name of Ramaiah Reddy has been entered in the owners column as well as in cultivation column but the name of petitioner herein has been deleted. Therefore, it is clear when the mutation M.R No. 5/84-85 for the year 1988-89 name of Muniyappa has been drawn for the reasons best known to the revenue authorities later the name of late Ramaiah Reddy is shown. Even the 5th respondent and the 6th respondent were unable to produce any prima facie evidence to show that their father's name has been entered in Columns 9 and 12(2) of Record of Rights on the basis of the documentary evidence. Therefore, the petitioner who claims the property in the capacity under unregistered gift deed is said to have been executed by Yellamma his maternal aunt so also claims property as successor. Since, no opportunity was given before deleting the name of the petitioner in both Columns 9 and 12(2) of record of rights in respect of land Sy. No. 47/1, after coming to know of this fact, the petitioner herein has applied for certified copy and thereafter filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in RA. No. 31 of 2000-01, with an application for condonation of delay stating that he was not aware of the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in M.R No. 5/84-85. He came to know about the death of Ramaiah Reddy when the 1st respondent made an application before the respondents to accord katha.

Therefore, there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. Of course the delay has been explained by the petitioner but the' Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that even though he had the knowledge about the M.E. No. 5/84-85 passed long back; the record of rights and other records produced by him for the years 1981-84, but the appeal came to be filed in 2000. Considering the fact that Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgment in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy1, Court is