ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order at Annexure-H passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 12.12.1997 and further sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the 3rd Respondent to include Survey No. 95 for division before making a notification as contemplated in Rule (b) of 131(XII) of the Karnataka Forest Manual and in the connected Writ Petition No. 16896 of 1998, the Petitioner is seeking for quashing the impugned order at Annexure-J dated 26.05.1998 by issuing a Writ of Certiorari passed by the 3rd Respondent urging various legal contentions. 2. Both these matters pertaining to the same parties and in the Connected Writ Petition the order passed by the 3rd Respondent is challenged for the reason that the 3rd Respondent has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner with a direction to approach him after disposal of the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner in the above referred Writ Petition. Hence, both the matters were heard together and pass the following common order. 3. The necessary brief facts of the case in respect of the first Writ Petition referred to above are stated as hereunder- The Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent are brothers. There is a family partition in respect of certain joint family lands in the year 1968. It is also undisputed fact that they had jointly enjoyed lands granted by the 3rd Respondent bearing survey Nos. 111, 130, 131, 137, 137/1 and 137/2 as per Annexure-A. The family of the Petitioner and the first Respondent have jointly enjoyed the lands, such as Areca and Spice garden shares held by them as the said lands are adjoining to their respective allotted share of the properties. According to the partition deed, the total extent of Areca and Spice Garden allotted to the Petitioner to an extent of 2 Acres 28 Guntas and 8 Annas and the total extent of share allotted in favour of the first Respondent is 1 acre 29 guntas. The first Respondent intended to get separate Betta lands as per the enjoyment he filed a petition before the 3rd Respondent under Rule 131F (XII) of the Karnataka Forest Manual (hereinafter called the 'Manual Rules' in short). The Petitioner has sought for revision of betta lands excluding Survey No. 95. The first Respondent intended to get separate Betta lands as per the enjoyment he filed a petition before the 3rd Respondent under Rule 131F (XII) of the Karnataka Forest Manual (hereinafter called the 'Manual Rules' in short). The Petitioner has sought for revision of betta lands excluding Survey No. 95. The 3rd Respondent has passed an order vide Annexure-D in respect of the following lands and assigned the betta lands to the Bagayat land as shown in the order which reads thus- Betta Survey Nos. Extent, Bagayat lands to which allotted 137/1, 7.32.0, 97,, 98,, 99,, 100,, 101,, 102,, 103,, 104,, 105,, 106. 111, 5.24.0, 107,, 108,, 109,, 110,, 112,, 113,, 114. 130, 1.03.0, 131, 1.10.0, 137/2, 10.04.0, That order came to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 29425 of 1997 by the Petitioner contending that the order passed by the third Respondent in exercise of his powers under the rules referred to above. Survey No. 95 of Betta land has been excluded in the said order. Therefore, he had sought for an appropriate Writ to be issued to him. This Court vide its order dated 23.10.1997 affirmed the order passed by the 3rd Respondent with a liberty to the Petitioner to present an appropriate application in the prescribed manner in respect of the land bearing survey No. 95 to the third Respondent seeking for division of that land. In pursuant to the said order, the 2nd Respondent Assistant Commissioner, has passed an order effecting the division of Betta lands and assigned the same to the Bagayat land in favour of the Petitioner and the first Respondent, survey number wise held by them together on the notified day. Further, in exercise of his power under Rule 131 and Rule 12 of Sub-clause (d) he has divided the betta lands among the Petitioner and the first Respondent herein. The fixed ratio of 4 acres of betta land to every one hector of garden land as far as possible taking into consideration the order passed by the 3rd Respondent. Further, in exercise of his power under Rule 131 and Rule 12 of Sub-clause (d) he has divided the betta lands among the Petitioner and the first Respondent herein. The fixed ratio of 4 acres of betta land to every one hector of garden land as far as possible taking into consideration the order passed by the 3rd Respondent. That order has been challenged before this Court by the Petitioner contending that the division effected by the 2nd Respondent is not in conformity with the Rule 131 of Sub-rule 12 clauses a, b, c and d. Further it is contended that the order passed by the second Respondent is not legal and valid and the same is arbitrary and has caused prejudice to the interest of the Petitioner. Further, it is contended by the learned Counsel Mr. C.B. Srinivasan appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that he fixed ratio of the lands to be allotted as provided in Sub-rule (12) of Rule 131 Clause (d) of the Rules are not assigned to the betta lands nearer to the garden land allotted in favour of the Petitioner the land bearing survey Nos. 98 to 105 only 6 acres 22 guntas of Betta land is allotted in his favour whereas the first Respondent is holding 1 acre 16 guntas from survey Nos. 107 to 110 and he has been allotted 12 acres 1 gunta of betta land which is violative of the rules referred to above thereby the interest of the Petitioner has affected and further he has contended that the approach of the second Respondent is not in conformity with the Rules. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the impugned order is not a speaking order and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Counsel Mr. G. Gangi Reddy for the first Respondent would submit that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the assignment order passed by the 3rd Respondent, which order is confirmed by this Court in the Writ Petition referred to above. 4. The learned Counsel Mr. G. Gangi Reddy for the first Respondent would submit that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the assignment order passed by the 3rd Respondent, which order is confirmed by this Court in the Writ Petition referred to above. The 2nd Respondent has passed the order after issuing the notices to both the parties and he had held spot inspection and with the help of the Revenue Officials, Survey Officials and he has come to the conclusion that division of beta lands should be made without disturbing the developments made by the parties and without affecting the rights of the parties. The 2nd Respondent-Assistant Commissioner has made proportionate allotment of betta lands with regard to the extent of bagayath land held by the parties both in Part-1 and Part-2 which are extracted as hereunder for considering the case of the parties- PART I: Sl. No. , Vahivatdar, Sy. No. of bagayat land of the sharer, Area as per records, Area of bayagat land as per Akarband, Average Betta-Land 1. Seetharam, 97, 0-32-0, 0-3-0, 1-10-0 Shankara Narayana Bhat, 106, 0-10-0, 0-10-0, 1-02-0, 0-13-0, 2. Krishna, 98, 0-12-0, 0-4-0, Shankara Narayana Bhat, 99 100 101 102 103 104 105, 0-10-0 0-05-0 0-05-8 0-13-0 0-12-0 0-10-0 0-12-0, 0-6-0 0-5-0 0-5-8 0-13-0 0-12-0 0-10-0 0-12-0, 6-23-0 1-39-8, 1-27-8, (According to Akarband), +, +, Total Bagayat land: 2-0-8 Total Betta land: 7-32-0, +, + PART II Sl. No. , Vahivatdar , Sy. No. of bagayat land of the sharer, Area as per records, Area of bayagat land as per Akarband, Average Betta-Land 1. Seetharam, 107, 0-12-0, 0-12-0, 12-1-0 Shankara Narayana Bhat, 108 109 110, 0-18-0 0-13-0 0-13-0, 0-18-0 0-13-0 0-13-0, 1-16-0, 1-16-0, 2. Krishna, 112, 0-13-0, 0-13-0, 6-0-0 Shankara Narayana Bhat, 113 114, 0-08-0 0-07-0, 0-08-0 0-07-0, 0-28-0, 0-28-0, Total Bagayat Land: 2-04-0 Total Betta Land: 18-1-0 Therefore, it is stated by the learned Counsel for first Respondent that in Part-1 the first-Respondent has been granted 5 acres 23 guntas of betta lands, in favour of the Petitioner and 1 and acre 10 guntas of betta lands in favour of the first Respondent. In Part-II of the table extracted above, the extent of bagayath land held by the first Respondent is 1 acre 16 gunta the total extent of 12 acres and 1 guntas of betta lands are assigned out of total betta lands of 18 areas 10 guntas. Further, under chapter X of the Rules, Rule 99(c) XXII contemplates division of beta lands proportionately to the extent of betta land held by the bagayath land owners. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the first Respondent that the division of the betta lands has been made by the second Respondent by fixing the ratio of the Bhagayath land taking into consideration of the adjacency, proximity of betta lands are assigned to the Petitioner and first Respondent on basis of their holding and cultivation of the garden land allotted to them. The 2nd Respondent-Assistant Commissioner has rightly done the division of the Betta lands between the parties by preparing a map and the particulars of the lands with reference to the holding of the Bhagayath lands fell to the shares of the parties clearly mentioned in the part-1 and part-2 of the table referred to above. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first Respondent Sri G. Gangi Reddy and Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit submit that the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in a matter like this. 5. The learned AGA Sri. S.N. Aswathnarayana has sought to justify the order passed by the 2nd Respondent relying upon the submissions made on behalf of the first Respondent, therefore he would submits that this is not a fit case for interference. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have perused the petition averments and the grounds, statement of counter filed by the first Respondent and perused the documents produced particularly Annexures-D and H with the sketch produced with the impugned order for having divided the betta lands in favour of the parties vide Schedule-A to the impugned order. I have also perused the memos filed by the parties with reference to the garden lands allotted in favour of the Petitioner and the first Respondent in pursuant to the partition deed referred to above. 7. I have also perused the memos filed by the parties with reference to the garden lands allotted in favour of the Petitioner and the first Respondent in pursuant to the partition deed referred to above. 7. After perusing the documents and considering the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it is noticed that Annexure-H the order passed by the second Respondent in exercise of his power under Rule 99(c) and XXII of the Karnataka Forest Manual for dividing the Betta lands in question in favour of the parties. The Deputy Commissioner by consent of the parties has passed an order wherein he has categorically held the extent of betta lands which are attached to the bagayath lands, the same has been allotted in favour in the Petitioner and the first Respondent which were in their possession and enjoyment. The said order has been challenged by the Petitioner before this Court only with regard to the survey number 95 of betta land. This Court by giving liberty to the Petitioner to make necessary application before the 3rd Respondent for assigning the said betta land in favour of the parties, the Writ Petition was disposed of. Therefore, the order passed by the 3rd Respondent has become conclusive unless that order is set aside nothing was left for the 2nd Respondent to go beyond the order passed by the 3rd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent following the order passed by the 3rd Respondent, he has divided the lands strictly following the Rule 131 of Sub-rule 12 of Clauses (a), (c) and (d) of the Manual referred to above. I have perused the impugned order at Annexure-H and the rough sketch produced along with the said order passed by the 2nd Respondent. It is noticed that the 2nd Respondent has gone to the spot, conducted spot inspection in the presence of the parties with the help of the officials of the survey department and the Revenue Inspector. On the basis of the order at Annexure-D with reference to the lands attached to the garden land allotted to the shares of the Petitioner and the first Respondent, the betta lands have been divided as per the sketch annexed to the order as Schedule-A. 8. On the basis of the order at Annexure-D with reference to the lands attached to the garden land allotted to the shares of the Petitioner and the first Respondent, the betta lands have been divided as per the sketch annexed to the order as Schedule-A. 8. In my considered view, the fact finding authority has followed the procedure contemplated under the Rules and he has followed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-D which order has become final. Therefore, this Court cannot verify the correctness of the factual aspects which are indicated in the impugned order at Annexure-D. The 2nd Respondent had no other option but to divide the lands on the basis of the betta lands which are attached to the garden lands which fell to the respective shares of the Petitioner and the first Respondent. Therefore, there is no error in law on the part of the 2nd Respondent, in dividing the betta lands in favour of the parties as shown in the impugned order. This Court cannot substitute its findings in the place of the findings recorded by the second Respondent in the impugned order. The Betta Lands are divided on the basis of the holding of the bagayath land of the Petitioner and the first Respondent and on the basis of the order at Annexure-D, which order is affirmed by this Court. Therefore, it is not open for this Court to exercise its extra-ordinary and supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the 2nd Respondent. In my considered view, there is neither error in law nor the findings in the impugned order are erroneous in law. Therefore this is not a fit case for this Court to interfere with the impugned order at Annexure-H, as the second Respondent has divided lands in favour of the Petitioner and first Respondent on the basis of their holding of Bhagayath lands and in conformity with the Karnataka Forest Manual. Hence, the Petitioner must fail. The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner should not be interfered with. Therefore the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 9. Hence, the Petitioner must fail. The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner should not be interfered with. Therefore the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 9. In so far as the connected Writ Petition is concerned, the petition filed under Rule 99, Sub-rule (12) of the Manual is concerned, the 3rd Respondent has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner solely on the ground that after the order was passed by the second Respondent the Writ Petition 99 of 1998 is filed. Since the above said Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, the order passed by the third Respondent in rejecting the application for division of land is liable to be quashed for the reason that he has not passed the orders on merits on the petition filed by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner in this case must succeed, and hence this Court pass the following order. 10. The Writ petition filed by the Petitioner in W.P. No. 99 of 1998 is dismissed. The order of the 2nd Respondent is affirmed. The Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner in connected Writ Petition No. 16896 of 1998 is allowed. Issued rule made absolute. The impugned order Annexure-J is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the 3rd Respondent to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties with a direction to the 3rd Respondent to dispose of the said application on merits as early as possible within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.