1. Writ proceedings have been used by unscrupulous tricksters, dodgers and persons who putforth claims to government lands to further their interest and also seek the aid of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to achieve such designs than to ventilate any of their legitimate grievance or legal rights.

2. The present writ petition is one such with the petitioner approaching this court in the context of changing of entries (Pahani) in the revenue records by the officials in the revenue department. Normally it is neither the function nor is required for a High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to look into correctness or otherwise of such revenue entries, as to in whose name the revenue entry stood, as to whether it should be mutated in the name of the petitioner or in the name of the 4th respondent, in respect of an extent of 8 acres of land in Sy.No.116 situated at Kurubarahalli Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

3. Claim of the petitioner is that she is a person who is cultivating the land and that either herself or her deceased forefathers name had been indicated in the revenue records in respect of the subject land, who claim under one Syed Abdul Rahim, who in turn had claimed that he had purchased the land from one Thirumalaiah and the said Thirumalaiah having become the owner of the subject land in terms of court auction sale held in the year 1926 etc.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner or her forefathers had made an application for re-grant of the subject land in their capacity as a tenant after the legislature enacted the Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) which appears was brought into force in the year 1958 and one such proceeding under this Act is claimed to be the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Magadi Taluk in LRF.226/78-79, which had resulted in an adverse order to the petitioner with the Tribunal having rejected the application for re-grant of the subject land in favour of the petitioner in terms of order dated 25/7/1979. This order was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 13672/1979 and this court in terms of the order dated 21/11/1983 allowed the petition, set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal.

5. It is the submission of Sri Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner that after the said remand, the development of law being, that it is not the Land Tribunal which has the jurisdiction to examine such matters arising under the then Mysore Act No.1, but only the Special Deputy Commissioner in terms of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1992 KAR 1827, the matter was transferred to the Special Deputy Commissioner and was pending before him.

6. But the Special Deputy Commissioner having rejected the application for re-grant allegation of the petitioner being that was not by an order on merits but due to certain development and on some technicality, in terms of the order dated 23/01/2004, the writ petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Act against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner in appeal No.913/2005 and it is claimed that the appeal is still pending before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.

7. While such is the version of the petitioner, the subject matter of this writ petition in this proceeding and the related proceedings pertaining to the revenue records, having indicated the name of the 4th respondent in terms of the impugned order as per the proceedings of the Tahsildar in M.R.No.104/2004-05, resulting in the order dated 10/5/2005 (which is produced as Annexure-A to the petition) whereby the Tahsildar it appears on an application filed by the 4th respondent directed change of revenue entries from the name of one Syed Sab in favour of the present 4th respondent – Sri Syed Ahmed S/o. Late Syed Hameed and his children.

8. The effort o