SREEDHAR RAO, J, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of the Joint Director of Land Records, Gulbarga, vide Annexure 'g'. ( 2 ) THERE is a serious dispute with regard to the title to the properties of Sri Madana Swamy Mutt. The 5th Respondent claims the right of succession to the property through Smt. Shankaramma who was said to be the owner ot the property whose name was -shown in the Municipal and other Revenue records. The petitioner on the other hand, claims right over the property by virtue of a Will executed by Late Sri Thriyambaka Swamy. However, the petitioner does not claim any personal interest in the property and insists that the revenue records should stand in the name of Madana Swamy mutt and not in the individual name of the 5th Respondent. In this regard, Annexures 'a' and A1 are the extracts of the Town Survey register, disclosing the name of the Mutt as the Kathedhar, At the instance of Late Smt. Karibasamma, the great grand mother of the 5th Respondent, the entries were mutated in the name of Smt. Karibasamma, which came to be challenged before the Deputy director of Land records and as per the orders at Annexure 'b', the change of mutation was set aside and it was directed that the name of the Mutt to be restored. Being aggrieved by the said order, Smt. Shankaramma filed a revision before the Director of Survey and settlement, who dismissed the revision as not maintainable. It was the grievance of the Smt. Shankaramma that, at the time when the proceedings at Annexure 'b' was made she is not made a party and no opportunity is given. Being aggrieved by the said order, Smt. Shankaramma filed a revision before the Director of Survey and settlement, who dismissed the revision as not maintainable. It was the grievance of the Smt. Shankaramma that, at the time when the proceedings at Annexure 'b' was made she is not made a party and no opportunity is given. ( 3 ) AFTER the dismissal of the revision vide Annexure 'c', Writ Petition was filed by Smt. Shankaramma before this Court in W. P. No. 35067/97, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition observing that the parties have already filed the Civil suit in O. S. No. 241/96 and 151/ 98 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bellary, and that the parties to be bound by the decision whatever to be rendered by the civil Court and also made clarificatory observation that, whatever the observations made in the revenue proceedings should not influence the Civil Court in any way, in adjudicating the right of the parties. In fact, in the present case, the dispute is concerned mainly with regard to the title to the property. 5th Respondent claims title to the property himself by way of succession. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENT to the orders of this Court in Writ Petition at Annexure 'e' a revision was filed against that order at Annexure 'b' before the Joint Director of Land Records, Gulbarga Division, bangalore. The Joint Director of Land Records allowed the Revision and directed the restoration of the name of the 5th Respondent. The order in the Writ Petition was aiso taken note of by the Joint director in the impugned order. It is observed that, this Court has not confirmed the impugned order at Annexure 'd', the order of the deputy Director of Land Records. Thus, exercised the Revisional jurisdiction condoning the delay and allowed the revision of the 5th respondent, as per the impugned order at Annexure 'g'. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. ( 5 ) THE first objection raised by the counsel for the 5th Respondent that, the petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain the petition does not appears to be tenable objection. After going through orders in several legal proceedings what ever that have taken place in all the proceedings the petitioner is a party and claims to be the Power of attorney Holder of Sri Thriyambaka Swamy. After going through orders in several legal proceedings what ever that have taken place in all the proceedings the petitioner is a party and claims to be the Power of attorney Holder of Sri Thriyambaka Swamy. It is true that, after the death of the principal, Power of Attorney gets'" automatically revoked. But, none the less, in the subsequent proceedings at Annexure 'g', the petitioner is made a party in his own individual capacity and not as Power of attorney. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that, he is managing the affairs of the Mutt and he is prosecuting the litigation for the benefit of the Mutt without claiming the individual right in the property in question. Besides that averments in the petition at para No. 1 that the Late Sri Thriyambaka Swamy has left a Will appointing the petitioner to Manage and look after the properties of the Mutt. In view of the said material, the contention that the petitioner lacks locus-standi does not hold any water. ( 7 ) THE counsel for the Respondent strenuously submitted that the order passed in Writ Petition at Annexure 'a' would not come in the way of the Joint Director of the Land Records while considering the revision of the 5th Respondent and submitted that the Writ petition was merely disposed of with out deciding on the merits of the claim and that, what so ever the appeal or revisionai opportunities available to the petitioner can not be said to have been taken away by the order in the Writ Petition at Annexure 'e'. Thus, submitted that the Joint Director did not commit any error in exercising jurisdiction and in granting the relief. In this regard, the Counsel for the 5th Respondent referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in KUNHAYAMMED AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KERALA and ANOTHER. The ratio in the said decision is not applicable to trie facts of the case and it was in the context of a situation where the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution was interpreted, where the two stages in filing of an appeal was under consideration. The first stage was before the appeal to be filed a leave to be obtained for preferring an appeal and after grant of such a leave, an appeal had to be filed. The first stage was before the appeal to be filed a leave to be obtained for preferring an appeal and after grant of such a leave, an appeal had to be filed. The Supreme Court eludicating the distinction and clarified the position that, when a leave to appeal is rejected it does not amount to entertaining an appeal and deciding on merits, however, after leave is granted an appeal is admitted and if any order passed, it amounts to adjudication on merits. The said ratio does not appear to have any bearing on the facts in the controversy. The 5th Respondent having invoked the extra ordinary remedy, in the writ proceedings and being directed by this Court to be confined to the litigation before a Civil Court for the adjudication of the rights, should not have invoked the jurisdiction of the Joint Director More so, on earlier occasion, the revision filed by the 5th respondent was before the Director of Survey and Settlement, Bangalore. In second revision, the Lower Rank Officer was approached and the said authority was totally in error in entertaining the revision and in passing the impugned order. ( 8 ) THE order passed in the Writ Petition by this Court makes it very clear that, the parties have to get their rights adjudicated before a Civil Court, The ruling of this Court reported in Mysore Law Journal 1969 page 198 makes it clear that, when there is a serious dispute with regard to the title to the property, the parties have to get their rights adjudicated before a Civil Court and Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the title. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Joint Director at Annexure "g" is to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. ( 10 ) THE Government Pleader is permitted to file memo ofappearanoe within four weeks. --- *** --- .