The exercise of power by Revenue Authorities must be reasonable and within a reasonable time. Civil Court is the appropriate forum for determining rights.

Non-interference is the rule insofar as the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Ace), for the purpose of mutating names of persons who have acquired rights by showing their names in the revenue records.

2. It is for this reason this Court dismisses a good number of such writ petitions, directing the parties to make good their claims, rights, title and interest etc., before the Civil Court and whereupon to seek the Revenue Authorities for changes in the revenue records also in terms of the determination by the Civil Court vis-a-vis warring parties. But interference, though an exception and on rare occasions, will be in a case where it is warranted.

3. The writ jurisdiction of this Court whether for issue of certiorari or writ of mandamus or even for issue of writ of prohibition, will be exercised when this Court notices that the administrative authorities have exercised the power given to them under the statutory provisions in an arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable manner which shocks the conscious of the Court. I find the present writ petition brings to the notice of this Court one such situation and therefore compels interfere in the matter.

4. The brief facts leading to this petition are:

That the petitioner is complaining of orders passed by the Tahsildar in terms of his order dated 4-8•2001 purporting to act under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act and according to the petitioner, to his detriment which order the petitioner was not able to shake off in spite of the appeal to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act and not even revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act and therefore the present writ petition.

5. Under the impugned order of the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar had directed change of entries in the revenue records to change it from the name of the petitioner in respect of an extent of 1 acre 17 guntas in Sy. No. 42/2B of Jalahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk, in favour of the fourth respondent in this writ petition, on the premise that the fourth respondent is able to trace title through his ancestors in terms of a sale deed dated 1-12-1924 and notwithstanding there appears a stray entry in the revenue records in the year 1965 in favour of the petitioner; that it had vanished intermittently and continued to be in the name of the petitioner till the year 1996-97 and in the opinion of the Tahsildar, even for such entries there was no genuine basis; that the reliance placed by the petitioner for a purported partition deed dated 2-8-1965 belongs to the members of the family, appears to be not genuine; that it was more in the nature of a concocted document; that the mutation entry in terms of the order MR No. 10/1963-64 was not traceable at all; that reliance was placed by the petitioner for the mutation of entries and in such a situation, the Tahsildar compelled to delete the name of the petitioner from the revenue records and to substitute the name of the fourth respondent, as the Tahsildar said he was satisfied that the fourth respondent was the true and legal owner of the land in question in terms of sale deed dated 1-12-1924. This order with which the petitioner was aggrieved and had tried to get over the same without success before the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner.

6. Submission of Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Tahsildar could not have acted under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act on the application filed by the fourth respondent; that there was no cause of action in favour of the fourth respondent based on which the Tahsildar could have been moved for action under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act; that the Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 128 of the Act, when there was no acquisition of rights by the fourth respondent vis-a-vis the petition