ORDER
V.G. Sabhahit, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.
2. The essential facts of the case are that, the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of Sy. No. 25 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas situated at Manavarthakaval village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, having purchased the said land under registered safe deed in the year 1990. The land was granted to the vendors of the petitioner by the Government that was originally numbered as Sy.No. 7, subsequently it was renumbered as 25 and revenue records stood as Revenue No. 25 only. While executing sale deed by mistake it was mentioned as Sy.No. 26/1, though the boundaries described in the sale deed establish the fact that what was sold was Sy.No. 25 only and not 26/1, It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 purchased 4 acres of land by registered sale deed on 3.9.2003 from one Smt. Radhamma as shown in the sale deed as Sy.No. 25 though it should have been shown as Sy.No. 26/1. The vendors of the petitioner found discrepancy and made an application to Revenue Authorities to correct the survey number and assess the revenue to Sy.No. 25 only. The said application was allowed by the Tahsildar and in appeal filed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue. Act (for short the Act) to the Assistant Commissioner by the fifth respondent, the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order passed in appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act revision was filed before the Deputy Commissioner by the fifth respondent and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 7.4.2006 allowed the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar by allowing the revision petition and being aggrieved by the said order in revision passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District under Section 136(3) of the Act, this writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only two arguments he would be submitting for consideration of this Court is that, firstly the revision was not maintainable before the Deputy Commissioner against an order passed in appeal under
Section 136(2) of the Act and in view of the judgment of this Court in Sreemanmaharaja Niranjana
Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugharajendra Mahaswamy Matadhpathy v. Deputy Commissioner, Coorg and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gururaj Gurunath Govind Rao Mutalik Desai v. The Statement of Karnataka and the second contention is that the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have appreciated the evidence in revision and reversed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner.
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel in Srimanmaharaja Niranjan Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswamy v. Deputy Commissioner ILR 1986 Kar. 1059 has been over ruled by the Full Bench decision relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Gururaj Gorunath Govind Rao Mutalik Desai v. State and this Court after considering the decision of the Full Bench and the provisions of the Land Revenue Act has held that the revision lies before the Deputy Commissioner against the order passed in appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act in Smt. Maramma v. The Tahsildar Sirguppa ILR 1999 KAR, 1203 and learned Counsel further submitted that as per the suit filed by the petitioner for declaration of his right in respect of Sy.No. 25 which is purchased by respondent No. 5 and what is purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deed is land comprised in Sy.No. 26 and the suit seeking declaration of right in respect of Sy.No. 25 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration in O.S.No. 1455/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and in the suit filed by the fifth respondent in O.S.No. 122/2004 there is an order of temporary injunction in favour of the fifth respondent and the same is issued after hearing the petitioner restraining the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property comprised in Sy.No. 25 and since revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to correct the survey number contained in registered sale deed, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is justified,
6. The learned AGA., submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has got revisional power under Section 136(3) of the Act against the order passed in appeal under Section 136 and revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Deputy Commissioner is justified.
7. I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
8. Having regard to the contentions urged, the points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act is maintainable against the order passed in appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act?
2) Whether the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision impugned in this writ petition calls for interference?
and I answer the above points as follows:
No. 1: In the affirmative.
No. 2: In the negative for the following:
REASONS
9. The full bench decision of this Court in Gururaj Gurunath Govind Rao Mutalik Desai’s case has clearly laid down that the Full bench cannot subscribe to that rationale in Srimanmaharaja Niranjan Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswamy’s case reported in ILR 1986 KAR. 1059 and has observed as follows in para-16 of the judgment”
In Srimanmaharaja Niranjana Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswamy v. Deputy Commissioner ILR 1986 KAR. 1059 a Division Bench of this Court has occasion to consider the scope of provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It was held therein that in exercise, of his powers under Section 136 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner has no power to revise the appellate order under Sub-Section (2) thereof Section 136(2) uses the expression “final as regards the order of the appellate authority made under that provision and there are no express words in any other provision enabling a revision and when the appellate authority makes an order under Section 136(2) of the Act, the order made by the original authority under Section 129 of the Act merges with the latter and therefore the Deputy Commissioner has no power to interfere with the order made under Section 129 of the said Act when it has been a subject matter in appeal. That decision stood on the scheme and scope of the provisions of the Act. It was pointed out therein that the expression rendering an appellate authority as final would be rendered otiose, if it were a subject matter for revision. But we cannot subscribe to that rationale, with respect, because where an order of authority is rendered final whether the same is subject to further revision should be understood in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to earlier wherein it is explained that the meaning to be attributed to expression ‘final’ will depend upon the scheme of the provisions of the Act and cannot be read in isolation. Merely because an expression “final” is used, it cannot be said that a revision would not lie against such an order.
10. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the above said observations and having regard to the provisions of the Act, no revision lies under Section 136(3) of the Act
11. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and learned AGA., appearing for respondents 1 to 4 is relying upon the above said observations only to contend that revision lies.
12. It is clear from the observations culled out above that the full bench has held that it cannot subscribe to the rationale in the decision in that when the order passed in appeal is final no revision lies and it has been held that the same has to be considered under the scheme of the Act and the order passed in appeal shall be final will not preclude a revision to be filed. The said decision of the Full Bench has been considered by this Court with reference to the provisions of the Act under Sections 136(2) and (3) in Smt. Maramma’s case and after following the Full Bench decision this Court has specifically held after considering the provisions and Sections 136(2) and (3) of the Act that revision lies against an order passed in appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act and has observed as follows:
It has to be stated that even though the decision of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act is declared to be final, there is no bar to revision of that order under Section 136(3) by the Deputy Commissioner, The order of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) is to be treated as an order passed under Section 129 and not an independent order. That being so, so long as the matter pertains to Sections 127 and 129, the finality attached to an order made in appeal under Section 136(2) is subject to the power of revision by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act.
13. In view of the above said decision of this Court, it is clear that the question as to whether the revision lies under Section 136(3) to the Deputy Commissioner against an order passed in appeal under Section 136(2) by the Assistant Commissioner is already answered by the decision of the Full Bench and the decision of this Court in Maramma’s case referred to above and accordingly point No. 1 is answered by holding that the order passed in appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act is revisable before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act.
14. POINT NO. 2: The only contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to reappreciate the evidence when the two authorities-the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner have on facts held that entry is to be made in favour of the petitioner. It is clear from the perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner that learned Deputy Commissioner has not appreciated the material on record and question of appreciating the evidence on record does not arise as revenue authorities have no power to record statement and wherefore question of appreciating the evidence on record does not arise. Even otherwise, it is clear from the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is based purely on the legal ground as the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent as to whether the property purchased by the petitioner is in Sy.No. 25 or 26 cannot be gone into by the revenue authorities and revenue authorities have to go by the contents of the sale deed and according to the sate deed executed in favour of the petitioner, the properties sold to the petitioner is in Sy.No. 26 and the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S. No. 1455/2006 seeking for a declaration that what is purchased by the petitioner is Sy.No. 25 and not 26 as described in the said deed is pending consideration before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Further, an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the property comprised in Sy.No. 25 as described in the sale deed under which fifth respondent has purchased the property is operating against the petitioner in O.S. No. 122/2004. The said facts are not disputed and in view of those undisputed facts, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that revenue authorities cannot change the survey number described in the sale deed and the entry which was in the record of rights prior to entering the name of the petitioner against the order of the Tahsildar to continue. In any view of the matter, it is well settled that mere entry in the record of rights would not confer any title and any order passed by the revenue authorities would be subject to a declaration that may be granted by the Civil Court and if ultimately petitioner succeeds in the suit filed by him in O.S.No. 1455/2006 by seeking a decree that what is purchased by him is the property comprised in Sy.No. 25 and not 26 as described in the sale deed executed in his favour the entry made in the record of rights is bound to be changed in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the decree that may be obtained by the petitioner and it is well settled that while considering the title to the parties that entry in the record of rights would not by itself be evidence of title and in the present case, having regard to the above said facts, it is clear that the finding has to be given by the civil court in O.S. No. 1455/2006 on the basis of the evidence that may be lead before it without reference to entries in the record of rights as the same is disputed and accordingly, I hold that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in exercise of the power of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, I answer point No. 2 in the negative and pass the following order:
The writ petition is dismissed, However, dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioner to work out his remedy, in accordance with the decree that may be passed in O.S.No. 1455/2006.