K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is same in these petitions. The respondents are also common. Though the nature of the claims are different, but the land involved is the same. Therefore, both these petitions are heard together. ( 2 ) IN writ petition No. 18017 of 1987 the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 17-2-1987 passed by the special deputy commissioner, raichur district, raichur in case No. Rbr/rrt/3/81-82 and case No. Rbr/apl/58/81-82. Though the petitioner has sought for quashing only the order of the special deputy commissioner dated 17-2-1987 at annexure-abut in effect the prayer is to quash the order of assistant commissioner and the tahsildar dated 21-11-1980 (Annexure-B) and 27-1-1975/28-3-1975 respectively inasmuch as the revision was filed before the special deputy commissioner, raichur against the order of the assistant commissioner, koppal, dated 21-11-1980 which, in turn, confirmed the order of the tahsildar, dated 27-1-1975/28- 3-1975. ( 3 ) IN writ petition No. 2329 of 1982, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dated 7th september, 1974 bearing No. Tch. msc. 6/74-75, anncxure-b passed by the superintendent of land records, bellary and the order dated 5-11-1976 passed by the joint director of land records, gulbarga division, gulbarga in appeal No. Lra. 1/75-76. Annexure-D is the order of the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'), dated 18th july, 1981 passed in appeal No. 356 of 1977 (rev-i ). ( 4 ) THE subject-matter of the first writ petition falls under the Karnataka land revenue act regarding the correction of the area comprised in survey No. 192 of anegundi village from 14 acres 7 guntas to 27 acres 30 guntas. ( 5 ) THE subject-matter of the second writ petition pertains to correctness or validity of the determination of the extent of the survey No. 192 of anegundi village. ( 6 ) THE third respondent in writ petition No. 18017 of 1987 is the 4th respondent in the connected writ petition (which will be hereinafter referred to as the 'uttaradhi mutt' ). ( 7 ) PRIOR to these proceedings, there was a civil suit between the petitioner and the uttaradhi mutt in original suit No. 65/1 of 1959-60 which was filed by uttaradhi mutt. ( 7 ) PRIOR to these proceedings, there was a civil suit between the petitioner and the uttaradhi mutt in original suit No. 65/1 of 1959-60 which was filed by uttaradhi mutt. The case of the uttaradhi mutt was that the land bearing survey No. 192 was sold by one vakil krista rao and he conveyed the title under a registered sale deed dated 23-3-1916 executed by him. The land measured 100 acres. In that suit, the title of the uttaradhi mutt was upheld and the claim made by the petitioner was rejected. There was an appeal preferred by the petitioner in appeal No. 45 of 1968 before the civil judge, raichur. It was dismissed on 2-2-1972. A true copy of the judgment and decree passed in original suit No. 65/1 of 1959-60 on the file of the munsiff, gangavalhi and a true copy of the judgment in regular appeal No. 45 of 1968 on the file of the civil judge, raichur are produced by the petitioner as annexures-e, f and g respectively. During the course of arguments, a true copy of the sale deed executed by vakil krista rao on 23-3-1916 was also made available by learned counsel for uttaradhi mutt. Thus, by reason of the decree passed by the civil court, the petitioner ceased to have, or claim any right in the land in question. ( 8 ) AFTER the civil court decided the claim of the uttaradhi mutt, the department of survey and settlement was approached to correct the extent of land in question bearing survey No. 192 of anegundi village from 14 acres and 7 guntas to 27 acres 30 guntas. The superintendent of land records, bellary, on examining the records, found that survey No. 192 of anegundi village measured 27 acres 30 guntas and there no government land was comprised in it. It was neither treated as kharab nor an independent survey number was assigned as government land. Therefore, it was held that the entire extent of 27 acres 30 guntas pertain to survey No. 192 only. Accordingly, he ordered for correction of the extent of the land. The petitioner who had lost in the civil suit could not have agitated the matter any longer, nevertheless he took up the matter in appeal before the joint director of land records, g ulbarga in appeal No. Clra. 1/75-76. Accordingly, he ordered for correction of the extent of the land. The petitioner who had lost in the civil suit could not have agitated the matter any longer, nevertheless he took up the matter in appeal before the joint director of land records, g ulbarga in appeal No. Clra. 1/75-76. The joint director of land records went into the matter in detail, examined it with reference to the sale deed and the boundaries given therein and held that the entire land in question fell within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed which was executed in favour of the uttaradhi mutt within which 'nava brindavan' was situated. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. He also held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the order of the superintendent of land records inasmuch as it had no right whatsoever in the land in question. ( 9 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the joint director of land records, the petitioner preferred an appeal No. 356 of 1977 (rev-i) before the tribunal. The tribunal also concurred with the opinion expressed by the joint director of land records and held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the order. In addition to this, it also found that the order-of the joint director of land records was correct. ( 10 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the uttaradhi muttfought the civil case on the basis that the land measured 14 acres and thereafter the petitioner made an application for grant of the remaining land available, pending that application, it was not proper nor permissible for the authorities to correct the extent of the survey number and reject his application on that ground. Once, the petitioner lost the suit and the uttaradhi mutt was held to be the owner of the land, it lost everything in the matter regarding right, title and interest claimed by it in the land in question except the religious right claimed by the petitioner, because the religious right was not the subject-matter of any of the proceedings. It is made clear that the findings recorded by the authorities and this order should not be construed as affecting the religious rights claimed by the petitioner and uttaradhi mutt in "nava brindavan" situated in the land in question. It is made clear that the findings recorded by the authorities and this order should not be construed as affecting the religious rights claimed by the petitioner and uttaradhi mutt in "nava brindavan" situated in the land in question. ( 11 ) IT was not at all permissible for the petitioner to challenge the proceedings in relation to measurement of the land and determination of the extent and the change of entries in the record of rights pursuant to the determination of the extent of the land. In fact, after the decree of civil court, there was no us between the petitioner and the uttaradhi mutt. The joint director of land records and the tribunal are right in holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the same. ( 12 ) THE only interested party in the proceeding relating to determination of the extent of land in question and the change to be effected in the record of rights in accordance with the determination of the extent made by the survey settlement department was the state government. Even to this day, the stand of the state government as submitted by the learned government pleader is that whatever finding recorded by the superintendent of land records and the joint director of land records is accepted as correct, because at no point of time remaining extent of land was considered to be outside'the boundaries of survey No. 192 and nor it was claimed or shown in the revenue records as belonging to the state government. In fact, a reading of the sale deed would make it clear that the land in question at the time when the sale deed was executed, measured more than 27 acres. It appears to me that floods in the river appears to have changed its course every now and then and as a result thereof there was a reduction in the total extent of 100 acres and in course of time, it appears to have reduced to 27 acres 30 guntas as it measures today. Before the civil court, the plaintiff-uttaradhi mutt had not claimed that the land measured only 14 acres, but it had depended upon the sale deed and gave the boundaries as found in the sale deed. Before the civil court, the plaintiff-uttaradhi mutt had not claimed that the land measured only 14 acres, but it had depended upon the sale deed and gave the boundaries as found in the sale deed. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order of the superintendent of land records and the joint director of land records. ( 13 ) ONCE this conclusion is reached, the petitioner will not have any right to challenge the correctness of the entries in the record of rights which are made in confirmity with the measurement made by survey settlement department and as per the measurement recorded by the superintendent of land records and the joint director of land records. This is sufficient to dismiss these two writ petitions. ( 14 ) FROM the findings recorded in the orders of the superintendent of land records, the joint director of land records and the tribunal and also of the assistant commissioner in appeal No. Sr/rrt/10-75-76 it emerges that originally the land in question must have measured 100 acres and because of alluvion it must have been reduced. Whatever the land available in the island belongs to survey No. 192 since there is no other survey number therein. When there is no kharab numbered or unnumbered the entire land must belong to survey number 192 and the survey department might have committed an error while conducting survey in 1925 knowingly or unknowingly. Hence, the petitioner's argument that the area other than 14 acres 7 guntas in the island belongs to government has been rightly rejected. ( 15 ) LASTLY, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the tribunal is not justified in making the observation in its order dated islh july, 1981 passed in appeal No. 356 of 1977 (rev-i) at paragraph 54. It reads:"it is not out of place to point out that even after 65 years of the sale deed executed by kristharao, the appellant is questioning the title of uttaradhi mutt by filing various proceedings before various authorities which only shows that these proceedings are vexatious and a mere harassment of the respondent with the public and the court. The appellant is merely trying to pick holes in the respondent's case without any semblance of a document, title or interest. The appellant is merely trying to pick holes in the respondent's case without any semblance of a document, title or interest. The appellant is throwing to winds all the orders and judgments to competent authorities, and imputing motives and the mala fides to everybody concerned, which has to be deprecated. Under these circumstances, we arc of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs. "on going through the order of the tribunal, I am satisfied that the remarks passed by the tribunal are not warranted. The parties have been fighting the litigation for several decades. That being so, the remarks in para 54 of the order of the tribunal are uncalled for. The expunclion of the same does not affect the integrity of the order of the tribunal. Accordingly, para 54 is liable to be expunged. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons slated above, paragraph 54 in the order dated 18th july, 1981 passed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal, Bangalore in appeal No. 356 of 1977 (rev-i) produced as Annexure-D is expunged. Subject to expunging of para 54 in the aforesaid order of the tribunal, both the writ petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that the orders challenged in these writ petitions and the findings recorded therein and this order shall not be construed as affecting the religious rights in "nava brindavan" situated in the land in question, claimed by either of the parties. Sri udayashankar, learned high court government pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance for respondents 1, 2 and 5 in writ petition No. 18017 of 1987 and for respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 in writ petition 2329 of 1982. --- *** --- .