Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J:-

In view of the Order dated 31.5.2012 made in W P No.67926/2011 by Learned Single Judge, Hon'ble Chief Justice by his special Order dated 21.6.2012, has referred the following question to answer by this Larger Bench:

"Whether orders made under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short, 'the Land Revenue Act') by the Assistant Commissioner in appeals preferred against the orders made under sub-section (4) or entry certified under subsection (6) of Section 129 of the Land Revenue Act, are subject to revision by Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act?"

2. Brief facts leading to the Reference may be stated as under:

Petitioner filed the above Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents, for quashing the Order in No.RTS/AP/109/09-10 dated 23.5.2011 at Annexure-C on the file of respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, and Order passed in No.RB/RTN113/2011-12 dated 12.10.2011 at Annexure-E on the file of respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum.

It is the case of the petitioner that the land measuring 6 acres 22 guntas in Sy. No.191/3A situated at Manjare Village, Chikodi Taluk Belgaum District, was granted in favour of his father- V enkaji Kulkarni by the Tahsildar of Chikodi, under Section 4(1) of Bombay Paragena and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950. Again, as per re-grant Order No.RBI WRG/SR.461 dated 2.3.1958, the land in question was re-granted to the petitioner's father who died leaving behind a daughter and three sons and they have inherited the land in question. As per MR No.2004-05 their names came to be mutated in the ROR of the land. The petitioner is the eldest son and personally cultivating the land in question; he has mortgaged the land in question in favour of Primary Agriculture Rural Development Bank Manjari, for raising loan of Rs. 20,000/-. The said mortgage is also reflected in column No.11 of the ROR and he is continuously in possession and enjoyment of his share of land. It is further pleaded that there is a dispute between the petitioner on one side and his brothers and sister on the other, in respect of the land in question. The petitioner had filed a Suit in O.S. No.9/200l against his sister and brothers and during the pendency of the suit, his brothers and sister alienated the entire land measuring 6 acres 22 guntas to a third party. It is stated that while granting the land in question, a condition was stipulated that it shall not be converted to non-agricultural purpose. But, his brothers and sister without his knowledge submitted an application forging his signature, for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose. As per the intimation letter dated 15.5.2006, the Assistant Commissioner referred the matter to Tahsildar for his report. But the Tahsildar, without conducting local enquiry, securing the documents as listed in the intimation at Annexure-C and without notice to the petitioner, submitted a report (Annexure-D) on 5.6.2006 to the Assistant Commissioner stating that there was no impediment for converting the land in question for non-agricultural purpose. In pursuance of the report of the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner passed an Order dated 27/6/2006 (Annexure-C) for conversion of the land in question from agriculture to Raitwa and issued certificate. After the petitioner came to know about the Order of conversion dated 27.6.2006, he filed a Revision Petition under Section 56 of the Land Revenue Ad, 1964 in No.55/2010 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore, for setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.6.2006. Further, the petitioner's brother-Anant/respondent No.2 has executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 and the latter has got mutation effected in his favour on 7.7.2006. Petitioner claims that he is in possession and unsuccessfully challenged the mutation entry made in favour of respond