The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 22-6-2007 passed by first respondent in Revision Petition No. 79 of 2006-07 as per Annexure-N and also the order dated 17-7-2006 passed by the 2nd respondent, in RA. No. 377 of 2004-05, as per Annexure-M, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction to confirm the order passed by the 3rd respondent in MR No.74 of 2004-05, dated 24-12-2004 as per Annexure-K

2. The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, petitioner and his family are agriculturists and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy. No. 40 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas situate af Munnikolala Village. He has succeeded to the said property from his ancestors and the said land was granted in the name of his grandfather as early as on 20-10-1940 under the Deprived Class Rules. The said land has been sold to one Sri Shamanna Reddy under registered sale deed dated 19-9-1955. The petitioner's father has repurchased the said land from Sri Shamanna Reddy under registered sale deed dated 17-11-1961 and they succeeded to the said property. Be that as it may. One Sri Natarajan-4th respondent herein on the basis of the concocted agreement for' sale from the third parties, has filed a suit for permanent injunction before the jurisdictional Civil Court and obtained the decree. On the basis of the judgment and decree passed by Competent Civil Court, the sale deed has been executed in favour of 4th respondent. On the basis of the sale deed executed through the Trial Court proceedings, 4th respondent has filed an application before the 3rd respondent for change of mutation. The 3rd respondent has refused to consider the request of 4th respondent for sanctioning the mutation certification and to enter his name in the relevant revenue records, by order dated 28-10-2004 in vide Annexure-L. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 28-10-2004 vide Annexure-L passed by 3rd respondent, 4th respondent herein has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North-Sub-Division, Bangalore, in proceeding No. RA:377:04-05. The 2nd respondent has allowed the said appeal filed by 4th respondent and set aside the order passed by 3rd respondent vide order dated 17-7-2006. Assailing the correctness of the said order, petitioner herein has filed a revision before the first respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, in Revision Petition No. 79 of 2006-07. The said matter had come up for consideration before the first respondent-Revisional Authority on 22-6-2007. The first respondent-Revisional Authority, after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant materials available on record, has dismissed the said revision petition filed by petitioner. Further, first respondent-Revisional Authority has upheld the observation made by second respondent that, entry found in the revenue record is subject to out come of the civil suit pending adjudication before the Competent Civil Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 as referred above and seeking appropriate relief, petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition.

3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner.

4. After careful perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 as referred above, it is manifest on the face of the orders that, both the authorities have not committed any error, much less material irregularity in passing the said orders. Further, it is not in dispute that the 4th respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction and in the said suit there was a compromise between the parties i.e., plaintiff and defendant therein and there was a compromise decree and on the basis of the said compromise decree, sale deed has been executed through Court proceedings. On the basis of the said sale deed, 4th respondent has filed an application befor