ORDER Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 9th October, 2006 passed in proceedings bearing No. REV/RP/50/2004-05 on the file of the first respondent vide Annexure-D, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 3 to 5 to enter the name of petitioner in the record of rights in respect of the land in Sy. No. 167/1 measuring 16 acres 12 guntas situate at Madiyal Village, Aland Taluk, Gulbarga District. 2. The facts of the case of petitioner is that, the husband of petitioner late Sri Eranna Yelki was the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 167/1 measuring 16 acres 12 guntas situate at Madiyal Village, Aland Taluk, Gulbarga District. After the death of the husband of petitioner, petitioner and the sixth respondent jointly filed the application for sanctioning the mutation entry and certification of the same and to enter the name of petitioner and sixth respondent jointly in all the revenue records including the RTC. The joint application filed by petitioner and sixth respondent were considered by the fifth respondent and the names of petitioner and sixth respondent were jointly entered in the relevant records after approval from the fourth, respondent in Mutation No. 114, dated 30th December, 2000. Be that as it may. 3. The seventh respondent has filed the application for entering the name of seventh respondent, exclusively in all the revenue records, on the ground that, he is the legal heir of deceased Sri Eranna Yelki. The said application has been entertained and mutation has been certified on 23rd April, 2001 in Mutation No. 127 by deleting the names of petitioner and sixth respondent and by entering the name of seventh respondent exclusively in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the fourth respondent dated 23rd April, 2001 in Mutation No. 127, petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga Sub-Division, Gulbarga, under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the fourth respondent dated 23rd April, 2001 in Mutation No. 127, petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga Sub-Division, Gulbarga, under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Assistant Commissioner, in turn after hearing both sides and after giving substantial opportunity, as referred in his order, has allowed the appeal filed by petitioner and set aside the order dated 23rd April, 2001 in Mutation No. 127 and further directed to enter the name of petitioner and sixth respondent jointly and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of their respective rights regarding the title to the land in question by its order dated 26th June, 2004. Being aggrieved by the said order in Appeal No. 21 of 2001-02 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga (second respondent herein), respondents 6 and 7 have filed the revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga (first respondent herein). The said revision petition filed by respondents 6 and 7 was allowed and the order passed by Assistant Commissioner, dated 26th June, 2004 was set aside and the order dated 24th April, 2001 in Mutation No. 127 has been restored, directing to enter the name of the seventh respondent exclusively in the record of rights by his order dated 9th October, 2006. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the first respondent, as referred above, vide Annexure-D, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. 5. Alter careful perusal of the order passed by first respondent, it is manifest on the face of the order passed by first respondent that, the first respondent has committed an error and illegality in proceeding to pass the impugned order, contrary to the material available on file. 5. Alter careful perusal of the order passed by first respondent, it is manifest on the face of the order passed by first respondent that, the first respondent has committed an error and illegality in proceeding to pass the impugned order, contrary to the material available on file. The reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority for allowing the revision filed by respondents 6 and 7 is that, the suit filed by petitioner in O.S. No. 5 of 2004 (renumbered) on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aland has been dismissed for non-prosecution and as on the date of passing of the order by the Assistant Commissioner, the matter was pending before the Civil Court for adjudication of the matter., Now, in view of dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution in O.S. No.5 of 2004, on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aland, petitioner has got no say in the matter and there is no share in the property held in her name and accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and ordered for restoration of Mutation No. 127, dated 23rd April, 2001. The said reasoning given by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner, cannot be accepted in view of non-consideration of the matter in accordance with law and that, there is no reference regarding the finding recorded by second respondent in his order dated 26th June, 2004 to the effect that, petitioner and sixth respondent have both filed application jointly and their request has been considered and mutation has been certified jointly in Mutation No. 114, dated 30th December, 2000. That, the said mutation had been certified in the name of petitioner and sixth respondent jointly and when the same has not been challenged, it has reached finality. Therefore, there was no question of considering the request of seventh respondent, without challenging the previous mutation entry and certifying the mutation once again on 23rd April, 2001 in Mutation No. 127 in favour of seventh respondent exclusively was not permissible. Therefore, there was no question of considering the request of seventh respondent, without challenging the previous mutation entry and certifying the mutation once again on 23rd April, 2001 in Mutation No. 127 in favour of seventh respondent exclusively was not permissible. Thereafter, the first respondent has observed that, during the course of Dafter Inspection of the Village Accountant, it was noticed that, the said Village Accountant while effecting Mutation No. 127, dated 23rd April, 2001 has not followed the directions as mentioned under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and accordingly, ordered for cancellation of the said mutation, restoring original mutation bearing No. 114, dated 30th December, 2000. This aspect of the matter has neither been looked into nor considered by the first respondent while passing the impugned order. Hence, in view of non-conduct of proper enquiry and for proceeding to pass the order contrary to the relevant material available on record and without reference to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (second respondent herein), I am of the considered view that, the impugned order passed by first respondent cannot be sustained and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed in part. The order dated 9th October, 2006 passed in Proceedings No. REV/RP/50/2004-05 passed by first respondent vide Annexure-D is hereby set aside. It is needless to clarify that, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga, is subject to the outcome of the civil litigation pending between the parties in respect of the land in question. 7. Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 within three weeks from today.