1. The petitioner has called into question the second respondent Deputy Commissioner's order, dated 28.03.2012 (Annexure-A) restoring the order of the fourth respondent Tahsildar for effecting the mutation entry in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 1 gunta at Sy.No.34 of Kodige Thirumalapura Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk in favour of the respondent No.5.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the land at Sy.No.34 totally measured 6 acres 37 guntas including 1 gunta of phot kharab land. The respondent No.5 purchased 1 acre 1 gunta of the said lands by a registered sale deed, dated 15.10.1958. The petitioner purchased the balance extent of 5 acres 35 guntas of land by a registered sale deed, dated 20.07.1972. The respondent No.5 sought the mutation entry in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 1 gunta in his favour. The Special Tahsildar, acting on his request effected M.R.No.24/2008-09. This was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner passed the order, dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure-M) by setting aside the Tahsildar's order of M.R.No.24/2008-09. This order was challenged by the respondent No.5 by filing Revision Petition No.110/2011-12 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by his order, dated 28.03.2012 (Annexure-A) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and directed the Special Tahsildar to continue the mutation/khata of the land in question in the name of the fifth respondent.

3. It is this order which is being assailed before this Court by Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.Prabhakar of M/s. M.P. Associates for the petitioner.

4. He submits that the mutation entry was sought in 2008 based on the sale deed stated to have been executed in 1958. The parties cannot seek the mutation entry rising up after nearly 50 years. In the long intervening period, the purchaser may have lost his right. He brings to my notice this Court's decision in the case of SRI ANNA RAO AND OTHERS vs. SRI GUNDAREDDY AND OTHERS reported in ILR 1997 Kar.1998, wherein it is held that it is not permissible for the revenue officer to order for the correction of the entries in the record of rights and pahanies by deleting the names of the petitioners in that case and in their place by entering the name of the State Government after 43 years from the date of the entry made in the revenue records.

5. He has also relied upon this Court's decision in the case of S.SHIVANNA vs. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AND OTHERS reported in 2006(1) KCCR 652, wherein the change of khata made in 2001 based on the sale deed of 1924 was disapproved. He read out paras 13, 15, 17 and 19 which are extracted hereinbelow:

"13. It is precisely here that I notice the usurpation of the functioning of the Civil Court by the Tahsildar. It is not the function of the Tahsildar for the determination of the rights of parties like a Civil Court with regard to the interest the fourth respondent could still claim under the sale deed of the year 1924 and it is a matter essentially for the Civil Court and not for the Tahsildar. Likewise the change of the name in the revenue records if at all was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1965 and as concocted by the fourth respondent, it is by playing fraud etc. or with concocted documents or otherwise, even such allegations of fraud etc. is a matter that should be made good before a Civil Court and not before the revenue authorities. Authorities like Tahsildar, totally lack jurisdiction to render finding or make a determination either in respect of an act of fraud or for declaring the rights in favour of any parties under a sale deed etc."

15. In the circumstance, I am of the clear view that the Tahsildar had exercised the jurisdiction not within him in terms of Section 128 of the Act, but on the other hand had acted in an unreasonable manner in trying to give