CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THE PETITIONER, RAKIN AHAMED, ADMITTEDLY is AN UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANT OF LAND bearing S. NO. 117, MEASURING 4 ACRES situated IN UTTUVAILI VILLAGE OF CHAMARAJANAGAR taluk IN MYSORE DISTRICT SINCE MORE than 10 YEARS. HE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE order PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER-ASSISTANT commissioner, NANJANGUD sub-DIVISION, NANJANGUD, IN PROCEEDINGS under SEC. 129 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND revenue ACT, 1964 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED to AS THE ACT ). THE SAID ORDER IS DATED 23-1-1988. THE ORDER IS ATTACKED AS illegal AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW on THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER did NOT HAVE ANY NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS r. 21 and AS SUCH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-B is LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. ( 2 ) ANNEXURE-A IS THE RTC EXTRACTDULY CERTIFIED AND IT SHOWS THE NAME OF the PETITIONER FOR THE YEARS 1984-85 AND 1985-86 IN THE CULTIVATOR's COLUMN. THERE is NO EVIDENCE OF HIS OCCUPATION AUTHORISED OR unauthorised PRIOR TO 1984-85 though HE HAS ASSERTED THAT HE IS IN OCCUPATION FOR the LAST 10 YEARS. ( 3 ) THE PREAMBLE TO THE ORDER AS ATANNEXURE-B IMPUGNED HEREIN CLEARLY SETS out THAT ONE DEVAKINANDAN-RESPONDENT-4 had MADE A COMPLAINT THAT THE ENTRY IN THE record OF RIGHTS HAD BEEN UNLAWFULLY MADE showing -THE PETITIONER AS THE OCCUPANT and THE SAME SHOULD BE CORRECTED AS HE was THE OCCUPANT AND CULTIVATOR OF THE said LAND. ON SUCH COMPLAINT, THE 2nd respondent-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CALLED for A REPORT FROM THE TAHSILDAR HAVING jurisdiction. THE TAHSILDAR BY HIS REPORT dated 13-1-1988 BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF the ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THAT THE PETITIONER RAKIN ahamed WAS NOT AN AUTHORISED cultivator OF THE LAND; THAT ONLY FOR THE years 1984-85 AND 1985-86 IN COLUMN no. 12 (2) OF THE RTC HIS NAME HAD BEEN shown AND ON HIS INSPECTION IT WAS FOUND that HE WAS NOT THE CULTIVATOR AND AS SUCH a REQUEST WAS MADE TO DIRECT CANCELLATION of THE ENTRY FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS 1984-85 and 1985-86. PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT and THE REPORT THEREON, THE SUB DIVISIONAL officer-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-2nd RESPONDENT conducted SPQT INSPECTION UNDER sub-SEC. (4) OF SEC. 129 OF THE ACT. THE concerned OFFICERS, THE SURVEYOR, BLOCK development OFFICER AND SOME VILLAGERS were PRESENT. BUT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT present THOUGH HE HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE spot INSPECTION (AS FOUND IN THE ORDER ). PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT and THE REPORT THEREON, THE SUB DIVISIONAL officer-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-2nd RESPONDENT conducted SPQT INSPECTION UNDER sub-SEC. (4) OF SEC. 129 OF THE ACT. THE concerned OFFICERS, THE SURVEYOR, BLOCK development OFFICER AND SOME VILLAGERS were PRESENT. BUT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT present THOUGH HE HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE spot INSPECTION (AS FOUND IN THE ORDER ). ( 4 ) ONCE THE PETITIONER ADMITS THATHE IS AN UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANT, HAVING regard TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 128 OF THE ACT, HE HAS NO RIGHT TO SEEK AN entry IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS OR THE COMBINED register OF TENANCY AS WELL AS CROP register COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS RECORD OF rights AND THE TENANCY REGISTER. ASSUMING that HE WAS NOT SERVED, UNLESS HE CAN legitimately EXPLAIN HOW THE ENTRY IN HIS favour CAME TO BE MADE IN THE RECORD OF rights; IN THE LIGHT OF HIS OWN ADMISSION that HE IS AN UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANT, THIS court IN ITS DISCRETION NEED NOT GIVE HIM any RELIEF UNDER ART. 226 OF THE. CONSTITUTION. ( 5 ) EVEN OTHERWISE SUB-SEC. (2) OFSEC. 136 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR AN APPEAL against AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT commissioner OR THE PRESCRIBED OFFICER (2nd RESPONDENT) WHEN SUCH AN ORDER IS passed UNDER SUB-SEC. (4) OF SEC. 129 OF the ACT. THE PETITIONER, THEREFORE, MUST pursue THAT ALTERNATIVE EFFICACIOUS REMEDY before HE MAY MOVE THIS COURT UNDER ART. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION. ( 6 ) SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE OBSERVATION,this PETITION IS DISMISSED. WRIT PETITION DISMISSED. --- *** --- .