ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned order at Annexure-R dated 31.5.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the katha made in favour of the Petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 129 of Karekallahalli Village in Gowribidanur Taluk and ordering vesting of the said land in Government. It is contended that the impugned order suffer from factual error as a finding is recorded that the tank situated in the land is a "public tank" and the land is a Government land but in the list of Tanks at Annexure-K it is shown as "Private Tank". So far as the land is concerned, the finding recorded is that land is classified as "Sendivana" but there is no trees in the land in question. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate made submissions justifying the impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner has perused the Preliminary Record of the year 1932 wherein it is mentioned as Government Tank. It is found that in the decree of the Civil Court the right is only limited for the use of lake. It was also found that in all the documents the land in question is termed as "lake". These findings are recorded on the basis of relevant records and this Court cannot substitute the findings by re-appreciating the material available on record. 3. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has to work-out his rights under Section 135(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by instituting suit for declaration of title. 4. The contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance upon the decision reported in 1977 (1) KLJ 367 (State of Karnataka Vs. T.M. Ramachandrachar) cannot be accepted. The said decision has no application to the facts of the case as the Deputy Commissioner has exercised the power pursuant to the order dated 5.11.1997 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2573 of 1991 remanding the matter to him for fresh consideration. Hence, the contention that suo-motu exercise of power by the Deputy Commissioner is bad in law, does not hold water. 5. Prima facie the Petitioner has no title to the land in question as required under Sections 127 and 128 of the Act. The decree of the Civil Court does not confer absolute ownership on the Petitioner. There is no ground for interfering with the impugned order. Writ Petition is devoid of merits. 5. Prima facie the Petitioner has no title to the land in question as required under Sections 127 and 128 of the Act. The decree of the Civil Court does not confer absolute ownership on the Petitioner. There is no ground for interfering with the impugned order. Writ Petition is devoid of merits. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations.