1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order passed in R.A.No.14/08-09 dated 24.8.2009, Annexure ‘D’ whereunder the revision filed by petitioner under Section 136 (3) has been allowed and the order passed by second respondent dated 3.9.2007, Annexure ‘C’ has been set aside.

2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:

One Sri Gangi Reddy purchased the property bearing Sy.No.48 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas situated at Jakkenahalli, D Palya, Gowribidnur. On an application made for change of katha revenue authorities entered the name of said Sri Gangi Reddy and mutated the revenue records which reflected the name of said Sri Gangi Reddy. Sri G. Nagaraju, 4th respondent herein made a claim over the said property and he filed an appeal assailing the revenue entries in RA(G)3/2007-08 made in the name of Sri Gangi Reddy contending that his grand father had partitioned family property and allotted the property in question to his son, Sri Bhimaiah i.e, 4th respondent’s father and on the death of said Bhimaiah, 4th respondent has succeeded to the property. The fact of Sale Deed under which Sri Gangi Reddy acquired title to the property in question was denied. The said appeal filed by 4th respondent came to be dismissed on 3.9.2007. On such dismissal, 4th respondent filed a suit for declaration of his title in respect of the land in question in O.S.No.271/2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Gowribidanur. However, 4th respondent parallely pursued his grievance before the first respondent by questioning the order dated 3.9.2007 rejecting his appeal No.R.A.(G) No.3/2007-08 by filing a revision petition under Section 136(3) r/w. Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Said revision petition came to be allowed by an order dated 24.8.2009 Annexure ‘D’, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri M.Shiva Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Mithun, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.D. Ashwatha Narayan for respondent No.4 Perused the records.

4. It is the contention of Sri Shiva Prakash, learned Counsel for petitioners that respondent No.1 committed a serious error in ignoring the registered Sale Deed dated 15.4.1974 and the mutation proceedings MR.No.21/74-75 whereunder, the name of Sri Gangi Reddy had been entered and as such allowing of the revision petition by 1st respondent without any cogent reasons is liable to be set aside. He would contend that when there is a registered Sale Deed executed in favour of the first petitioner’s husband and father of petitioners 2 and 3, the respondent authorities were fully justified in mutating the name of the said Gangi Reddy in the revenue records which did not call for any interference. He would further submit that 4th respondent claimed title to the property on the ground that the vendors of Gangi Reddy did not have absolute right and said issue could not be resolved in the proceedings under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the parties are required to get the said dispute adjudicated in a competent civil Court and as such, there was no justifiable cause for the first respondent to upset the findings of respondents 2 and 3 particularly when 4th respondent himself has filed a suit in O.S.No.271/2007 seeking cancellation of the Sale Deed executed in favour of Gangi Reddy and for declaration of title to the land in question in his favour. As such, it is contended that first respondent was not justified in entertaining the revision petition under Sub Section (3) of Section 136 of the Act. On these grounds, he seeks for quashing of the impugned order and allowing the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would support the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of writ petition.

6. Sri Mithun, learned Counsel appearing for 4th respondent