CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents is disposed of by the following order after hearing Counsel for parties. Petitioner Rudramma made an application to the respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4. as a consequence of which, the Assistant Revenue Officer, Gandhinagar Range, Corporation of the City of bangalore by his endorsement dated 14-11-1980 informed the petitioner that the khatha of property No. 265, Subedar Chatram Road had been transferred to her name in the registers of the corporation Office. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the Convenor of Sri Dattatreyaswamy Temple Trust, appears to have made a representation to the Commissioner of the Corporation, stating that the property is a Muzrai properly and therefore, the change of katha obtained by the petitioner Rudramma was illegal and by misrepresentation; that the property of the Goduraya Mutt which bears No. 266 was thus misappropriated by persons having vested interest in collusion with Municipal officials As a consequence of that representation, the Revenue Officer (North) Bangalore City Corporation, initiated proceedings, giving due notice to parties and to the Commissioner for Religious and charitable Endowments to appear before him and produce documents in respect of the respective claims. He even recorded oral and documentary evidence. After referring to the passing of the mysore Religious and Charitable Inam Abolition Act of 1955 he came to the conclusion that the inam lands had been vested in the Government under Section 3 of the Act and therefore, the inamdar the Goduraya Mutt was entitled to compensation and the property in question had vested in the Government. e. , in the Department of Religious and Charitable Endowments. He also held that the property was in tact the property of Muzral Institution and therefore, the petitioner - Rudramma did not have the right to have her name endorsed in the katha register of the Corporation as was done in 1980. ( 3 ) IN that circumstance, he revoked the endorsement dated 14-11-1980 issued to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that the revenue Officer of the Corporation has no jurisdiction to review what was done earlier in 1980. ( 4 ) IN support of the claim, learned Counsel Sri K. V. Vasanth has depended on the decision of this court in the case of Thimmarayappa and Ors. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that the revenue Officer of the Corporation has no jurisdiction to review what was done earlier in 1980. ( 4 ) IN support of the claim, learned Counsel Sri K. V. Vasanth has depended on the decision of this court in the case of Thimmarayappa and Ors. v. Commissioner, Corporation of Bangalore and ors. , 1979 (1) KLJ 81 In that case one of the issues that fell for consideration was whether the commissioner could have reviewed the order made by the Assistant Revenue Officer in the exercise of the power vested in him under Section 17 of the Act, The Act that fill for consideration in that case was the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. In deciding that question, this Court emphatically ruled that the power to review is not an inherent power which the Commissioner could conveniently invoke as he pleases. Such power must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. Therefore, Sri Vasanth, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 114 of the Act, where there is an obligation on the part of the transferor and the transferee of immoveable properties within the jurisdiction of the Corporation, to give notice of any transfer which shall be recorded in the register maintained by the Corporation there is no power of review conferred on the Corporation revenue authorities. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, Learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation places reliance upon Sub-section (4) of Section 443 which empowers the licensing authority to cancel or revoke any licence or permission given under the Act or any rule or bye-law made under the provisions of the Act, if any of its restrictions or conditions is evaded or infringed by the grantee or if the grantee is convicted of a breach of any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, bye-law or regulation made under it. ( 6 ) THAT power conferred specifically on the Commissioner in regard to permissions and licences cannot be equated with the power of review to change the katha once changed on the application made by the petitioner. Such transfer of the title by virtue of inheritance as per notice given was acted upon at that time before she was issued with the endorsement dated 14-11-1980. Such transfer of the title by virtue of inheritance as per notice given was acted upon at that time before she was issued with the endorsement dated 14-11-1980. Having issued that endorsement in her favour, changing the katha, the Revenue Officer of the corporation cannot assume jurisdiction to go into the question of title of rival claimants as in the instant case, as evidenced by his order Annexure-D. If the convenor of the Trust the 5th respondent wanted to prove the title, he can institute appropriate suit seeking title or make the government in which the property is said to have vested to file the necessary suit for declaration of its title. Not having done so, it cannot invoke the power of the Revenue Officer to review that does not exist. ( 7 ) IN that view of tha matter, the contention of the petitioner must be upheld without expressing any opinion as to who the real owner of the property in question is. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for 5th Respondent sought a short adjournment to place the view point of the trust. Similarly Smt. Sona Vakkund, wanted to present an application in Court to-day seeking the impleading of the sister-in-law of the petitioner to contest the claim put forward by the petitioner as the owner. In this proceeding under Article 226 such an application cannot be maintained much less decide the issue of title between the sisters. The appropriate course fur the impieading applicant is to seek suitable remedy in the Civil Court. Therefore, Smt. Sona vakkund is not permitted to present that application in Court, at this late stage. ( 9 ) SIMILARLY, the prayer for adjournment prayed for by the Counsel for the Trust is also refused as the trust cannot independently claim interest in the property which according to the trust is the property which is vested in the Government. It cannot, therefore, plead a cause on behalf of the government. Therefore, the adjournment prayed for is refused. ( 10 ) ALL questions regarding title are left open and the petition is allowed and the impugned order of review (Annexure-D) of the endorsement dated 14-11-1980 is quashed. No costs.