ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—In all these writ petitions the Petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 19.12.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the Saguvali Chits and delete the mutation entries made in favour of the Petitioners in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 41 of Konappana Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of the report dated 24.4.2000 of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. 2. The Petitioners had been served with notices before passing the impugned order calling upon them to show cause as to why the mutation entries in their names shall not be deleted. Petitioners appeared and defended their title on the basis Saguvali Chits. Since there was doubt about the genuineness of those Saguvali Chits, the same were referred to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory seeking his opinion. In the report submitted by Forensic Science Laboratory, it was categorically stated that the signatures of the then Tahsildar do not tally with the signatures on the Saguvali Chits relied upon by the Petitioners. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order. 3. On instructions, learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the records. I have perused the records and also compared the signatures of the Tahsildar on the documents relied upon by the Petitioners with the signatures found in the original records. Prima facie I am satisfied that the signatures do not tally. Thus, the claim put forward by the Petitioners were based on fabricated documents. Even if the claim of the Petitioners is to be accepted, Respondents deny the same. Since disputed questions of fact relating to title is involved, these are not fit matters for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the documents relied upon by the Petitioners were of the year 1952 and the impugned order is passed in the year 2000 after a lapse of about 38 years, which is not permissible in law. He placed reliance upon the decision reported in Sri Anna Rao and Others Vs. Sri Gundareddy and Others, ILR (1997) KAR 1998 wherein it is held that it is not permissible to correct the mutation entries after a lapse of 43 years. 5. He placed reliance upon the decision reported in Sri Anna Rao and Others Vs. Sri Gundareddy and Others, ILR (1997) KAR 1998 wherein it is held that it is not permissible to correct the mutation entries after a lapse of 43 years. 5. The ratio of the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is not applicable to the facts of these cases. Though the Petitioners claim title by virtue of the Sannad at Annexure-A dated 20.10.1952, the Grant Certificate in Form-I produced by them is of the year 1979. In the decision referred to supra, the Court has taken into consideration the period of 30 years to claim adverse possession against the Government. In the instant case, Annexure-A is held fabricated document. The period of 30 years is not completed from the date of issuance of Grant Certificate in Form-I. Hence, the decision has no application to the instant cases. 6. Since a categorical finding is recorded by the Deputy Commissioner based on the report of Forensic Science Laboratory that the documents relied upon by the Petitioners are fabricated, reliance placed on Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is also mis-placed. If the Petitioners are still aggrieved, they may work-out their rights under Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 7. Writ Petitions are dismissed.