In this writ petition, the petitioners have called in

question

the

order

dated

19.10.2017

passed

by

respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-J

allowing the revision filed by respondent No.6 under

Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the land bearing

Sy.No.19 situated at Kanamadi village, Vijayapur Taluk, is

measuring 40 acres 03 guntas. Out of which, the

petitioners' father purchased 5 acres 5 guntas by sale deed

dated 19.11.1955 and it has been poded as Sy.No.19/2.

Remaining 34 acres 5 guntas of land has been poded as

Sy.No.19/1. Later, vide Annexure-B in Form No.11,

Assistant Director of Land Records, Vijayapur, (for short

'ADLR') has mentioned total extent of the property belongs

to the petitioners as 9 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.19/2. The

same has been continued in the revenue records. Being

aggrieved by the same, respondent No.6 filed an appeal

4

before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of

the Act. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated

03.12.2016 has dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by

the same, respondent No.6 filed revision before the Deputy

Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act. The

Deputy Commissioner by order dated 19.10.2017 allowed

the revision petition setting aside the entry made in favour

of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners are before this Court.

3.

Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel for the

petitioners

contended

that

petitioners'

father

has

purchased 5 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.19 by sale deed

dated 19.11.1955 and it has been re-numbered as

Sy.No.19/2. The ADLR while conducting survey found that

the land measuring 4 acres 15 guntas abutting to the

petitioners' land is a vacant fallow land belonging to the

State Government and the same was cultivated by the

petitioners. Hence, in Form No.11 the ADLR mentioned the

total extent of the property belongs to the petitioners as 9

5

acres 20 guntas. Respondent No.6 without authority of

law filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner for

change of revenue entries. The Assistant Commissioner

has rightly rejected the appeal. However, without

verifying the original records and without application of

mind, the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order

allowed the revision filed by respondent No.6. The same is

contrary to provisions of Section 136(3) of the Act. Hence,

he sought for allowing the writ petition.

4.

Per contra, Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath,

learned counsel for respondent No.6 has filed statement of

objections and contended that the land in Sy.No.19 totally

measuring 40 acres 3 guntas situated at Kanamadi village

originally belongs to ancestors of respondent No.6. Out of

40 acres 3 guntas, 5 acres 5 guntas of land was purchased

by petitioners' father. While making podi without giving

any notice to respondent No.6, revenue authorities has

entered the name of the petitioners in respect of 9 acre 20

gunats instead of 5 acres 5 guntas. Therefore, respondent

6

No.6 has challenged the revenue entries. The Deputy

Commissioner after verifying all the original records has

rightly passed the impugned order at Annexure-J allowing

the revision filed by respondent No.6. Thus, there is no

error in the impugned order. Hence, she sought for

dismissal of the writ petition.

5.

Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1

to 5–State defending the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner contended that since the entry made by the

Tahsildar in respect of the petitioners' land is contrary to

the material available on record, the Deputy Commissioner

has rightly passed the impugned order allowing the

revision petition and setting aside the entry made in favour

of the petitioners. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of

the writ petition.

6.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the writ papers.

7

7.

It is not in dispute that the land bearing

Sy.N