1. The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the first and second respondent namely the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner Ramanagaram, directing to enter the names of Respondents 5 and 6 in the records of the land bearing R.S.No.37/2 of Billakempanahalli Village, Ramanagaram Taluk.

2. The facts reveal that one Hanumanthaiah son of Basappa was the absolute owner in possession of the land bearing R.S.No.37/2 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas including 4 guntas of kharab land. The said Hanumanthaiah alongwith the family members sold the land to the extent of 3 acres and 3 guntas in S.No.37/2 in favour of one Venkatalakshmamma under the sale deed dated 11.5.1993. The remaining extent of 0.2 guntas in the same survey number was sold by Hanumanthaiah and his family members in favour of Venkatalaksmamma under a registered sale deed on 12.5.1993. So the said Venkatalakshmamma became the absolute owner in possession of the property measuring 3 acres and 5 guntas in S.No.37/2.

3. Subsequently, Smt.Venkatalakshmamma sold an extent of 2 acres 4 guntas in favour of Respondent No.4 herein under two separate sale deeds dated 24.lO,l994. Pursuant to these sale deeds, the mutations were made in the records vide MR No.4l/94-95. The first petitioner herein purchased one acre of land in R.S.No.37/2 under the sale deed dated 17.8.1985 from Respondent No.4 and on the same day, Respondent No.4 also sold another extent of 1 acre of land excluding 0.2 guntas of kharab land in favour of the second petitioner.

4. Subsequent to the purchase of these properties, the names of the petitioners were entered in the mutation register as per MR No.17/94-95 and MR No.1/95-96 in the year 2002. The lands purchased by the petitioners surveyed and new sub numbers were assigned. The land belonging to the first petitioner was numbered as S.No.37/5, whereas that of second petitioner was numbered as S.No.37/4. They also claim that some portion of the land has been acquired by the Government for widening the Mysore-Bangalore High Way.

5. The respondents 5 and 6 claiming to be the children of one Hanumanthappa filed an appeal before the Respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.149/2006-07 challenging the mutation proceedings in MR.No.42/94-95, 17/95-96 and MR No.1/96-97 in the year 2006. The learned Respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner without issuing notice to the petitioners passed an order on 19-09-2008 setting aside the mutation proceedings and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar to hold a fresh enquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached the Respondent N0.1 - the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.58/2009-1O. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 25-08-2010 and further directed the Respondent No.3 - Tahsildar to enter the names of Respondents 5 and 6 without any enquiry. Aggrieved by the order, the instant petition has been filed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for Respondent N0,5 and the AGA for Respondents 1 to 3.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to declare the sale deed as invalid and therefore, the order passed by the Respondents 1 and 2 are illegal and void. So also, it is his submission that there are sale deeds since from 1993 onwards and the petitioners have purchased the property in the year 1995 and Respondents 5 and 6 kept quite all along till the year 2006 and filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and this itself would go to show that the respondents have no bonafides in initiating the proceedings. He has produced the copy of the sale deeds at Annexures-A to E including the mutation entries and it is his submission that in view of these documents, the entries were effected all along whenever there was a registered sale transaction and that the revenue authorities have