Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 1-4-2009 (Annexure-N) passed by the first respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 44 of 2006-07.

2. The petitioner's case in brief is that the land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas (including 4 guntas of phot kharab land) at Sy. No. 43/2 of Avalahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli were owned by Sri Lankappa s/o Gangaboregowda. On the demise of Sri Lankappa, his son Sri A.L. Hanumanthappa became its owner. Further, on the demise of Sri A.L. Hanumanthappa, his wife Smt. Sharadamma, his son Hanumappa and his brother Lankappa have become the owners. When thus stood the state of affairs, the name of one Smt. Sharadamma w/o. Late Thippaiah came to be shown in the revenue records vide IHC CR 2/1991-92. This mutation entry was without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged it by filing R.A. No. 62 of 1999-2000 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, vide his order, dated 12-4-2001 (Annexure-C) allowed the appeal by directing that the petitioner's name be shown in the revenue records in the place of the sixth respondent's name. The sixth respondent did not challenge the Assistant Commissioner's order immediately, but approached the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike CBMP for short) for the change of khatha in her favour. On knowing that the sixth respondent has obtained the khatha from the BMP, the revision petition was filed invoking Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. In the revision proceedings, the issuance of khatha was revoked on 9-10-2000. The sixth respondent instituted O.S. No. 618 of 1991 against the BDA in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, which was dismissed on 19-6-1996. Meanwhile, the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of land in question for benefit of BDA were also impugned by the sixth respondent in W.P. No. 1283 of 1997 and W.A. No. 713 of 1999, but without any rate of success.

3. In 2006, the sixth respondent filed Revision Petition No. 44 of 2006-07 and raised the challenge to the Assistant Commissioner's order, dated 12-4-2001. The Special Deputy Commissioner by his order, dated 1-4-2009 set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and directed that the entries in the revenue records in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas at Sy. No. 43/2 be continued in the name of the sixth respondent. Aggrieved by this order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, this petition is instituted.

4. Sri K.N. Puttegowda, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner has erred by entertaining the challenge in 2007 to the Assistant Commissioner's order passed in 2001. He submits that the recorded owner as per the settlement register, etc., Lankanna s/o. Gangaboranna was the owner. The sixth respondent predecessor-in-title Smt. Kenchamma claims to have purchased it from Sri Hanumanthappa, who was not the owner at the material point of time. He also submits that the sale deed executed in favour of the said Kenchamma is only in respect of 1 acre 28 guntas, whereas the Special Deputy Commissioner has passed the order in respect of the 2 acres 35 guntas. He has also produced the documents along with the rejoinder.

5. Sri Puttegowda submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner has not gone into the vital aspects of the matter like the revocation of the khatha issued by the BMP in favour of the sixth respondent. He further submits that the land in question is withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner has formed the layout and sold the land to the third parties. This petition is filed basically to safeguard the interests of persons who have purchased the sites from the petitioner in the layout formed out of the lands in question.

6. Sri R. Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that the parties cannot resort to the writ remedy for enforcing their civil rights. He br