1. A writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not one that confers High Court a special jurisdiction which it can exercise in any situation. It is in the nature of power of superintendence over the functioning of the courts and Tribunals in the State.

2. It is essentially meant to reign in the Judges and quasi judicial functionaries who function in courts and Tribunals within their jurisdiction and also to ensure that they do not function or conduct in an arbitrary manner to the detriment of the litigant or a citizen of this country.

3. When this court examines any order/Judgment passed by a court or even an order whether administrative or quasi judicial passed by a public authority, the scrutiny is to find out as to whether the Judge presiding over the court has exercised his jurisdiction within the limits of law, has been properly exercising jurisdiction conferred on him/her and likewise the same principle applies to a public authority or a statutory functionary.

4. The examination necessarily has to be on the touchstone of the statutory provisions in the exercise of which provisions the courts or authorities function. When this court examines such orders/Judgments etc., it is not as though this court can pass orders invoking all such powers conferred on the High Court under the Constitution of India or under any other statutory provisions. Any order or direction if issued in a matter of this nature, if it is one relating to inter se dispute essentially in the nature of an adversary litigation, it can never exceed the original jurisdiction which the Judge in the original court or a public authority or statutory authority of the 1st instance exercises. Even the High Court cannot pass or issue such directions either in contravention or in variance of the original limits of the statutory powers or other jurisdiction conferred on the courts and the authorities.

5. It is not as though the High Court can invoke any of its other powers either under the Constitution of India or under any other statutory provision while disposing of a matter arising under a particular statutory provision and in the present case, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short ‘the Act’], and with certain revenue authorities like the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner – the revenue officers each being subordinate to the next exercising administrative powers and also function as statutory functionaries under the provisions of the Act.

6. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which has its origin in the Mysore Land Revenue Code, is basically an enactment meant for identifying the alienated agricultural lands so that a record of all such land holdings is maintained, particularly, for the purpose of the revenue authorities having information to identify persons from whom revenue is assessed and collected. Raising revenue is the basic object and it is for that purpose, the name of persons in whose name holdings stand etc., are also recorded.

7. Revenue authorities do not regulate the acquisition or extinction of rights in properties including agricultural lands etc., Revenue authorities are primarily required to keep a record of the names of persons who have acquired rights for ensuring that the revenue i.e., the land revenue is collected from such persons. Such is the basic purpose of the Act.

8. It has become a malady of late that persons claiming interest in the agricultural lands and what with a vast extent of agricultural land alienated or non-alienated, being in the ownership of the State, having been systematically and many a times not so systematically, doled out to persons deserving or undeserving, in bits and pieces and such transfer of lands to provide for an alienated lands being brought under agricultural operation being effectuated through grants etc., and these grants not necessarily being supported by a proper documentation, in the sense, ownership in the land not being convey