ORDER Petitioner, questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 30th August, 2006 passed in Revision Petition No. 137/2005-06 by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore vide Annexure-Q, and to hold the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents-authorities to continue the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land in Survey No. 9 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas situate at Krishnarajapuram Village from the agricultural year 1994-95 and onwards. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 28836 of 2003 seeking a direction to the Deputy Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore to consider the representation submitted by petitioner vide Annexure-F therein and direct the respondents to enter the name of the petitioner in the RTC extract both in the cultivator's column as well as in column (9) in respect of land bearing Sy. No.9 measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas in Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore East Taluk. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 4th July, 2003. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Deputy Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram to consider the representation submitted by petitioner vide Annexure-F therein and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In the light of the direction issued by this Court in the said writ petition, the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore passed the order dated 12th September, 2003, after careful evaluation of the entire relevant material available on record, and in total compliance and obedience of the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition disposed of on 4th July, 2003 vide Annexure-N, rejecting the request made by petitioner by assigning nine valid reasons for such rejection. The said authority disposed of the matter, holding that, there are no authenticated documents in the Revenue Office to show that, petitioner's name is entered in the relevant records in respect of the land in question and more over on the ground that, the said authority does not have any power to pass the order, directing to record the name of petitioner afresh either in column (9) or in column (12) cultivator's column and closed the case. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram, dated 12th September, 2003, in proceedings No. RRT (1) CR 145/2002-03, vide Annexure-N, petitioner has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore in proceedings No. R.A. 138/2003-04. The Assistant Commissioner in turn, after considering the relevant material available on file, and also considering the documents produced by the petitioner numbering 10 and by assigning cogent reasons, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore East Sub-Division, Bangalore, dated 21st June, 2005 bearing No. RA. 138/2003-04 vide Annexure-P, petitioner has filed the revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in Revision Petition No. 137/2005-06. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District on 30th August, 2006 and the Special Deputy Commissioner, after hearing both parties, after conducting enquiry and after critical evaluation of the entire original records threadbare, with reference to the relevant material available on file, and also considering the order passed by the Special Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner, has dismissed the revision filed by petitioner, holding that, the claim put forth by petitioner in respect of Sy. No. 9 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of Krishnarajapuram Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk (formerly Bangalore South Taluk) is based on created, concocted and forged documents and since there is no land grant order as such passed in favour of the petitioner herein, the question of canceling the same does not arise and in the result, the revision petition filed by petitioner does not merit consideration. The revision petition filed by petitioner was accordingly dismissed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram, Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore East Sub-Division, Bangalore and the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs as stated above. 3. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, petitioner was cultivating an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 9 situate at Krishnarajapuram Village, unauthorisedly. 3. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, petitioner was cultivating an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 9 situate at Krishnarajapuram Village, unauthorisedly. Accordingly, he has filed the application in Form 50 for grant of the said land under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The request of the petitioner was considered and petitioner was granted the land to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas out of Sy. No. 9 of Krishnarajapuram Village and accordingly, petitioner has deposited the upset price of Rs. 4,500/- in the treasury in the year 1984. Thereafter, mutation has been certified in favour of petitioner and his name has been entered in the relevant RTC extracts for the agricultural years 1984-85 till 1994-95. Be that as it may. 4. It is the further case of petitioner that, the revenue authorities, without justification and without affording opportunity to petitioner, have discontinued to enter the name of petitioner in all the relevant revenue records including the RTC extract etc. Aggrieved by the said discontinuation of entering his name, petitioner has submitted a representation to the. Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram and his request was not considered within the reasonable time. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in a writ petition seeking a direction to consider his representation. This Court disposed of the said writ petition, directing the concerned respondent to consider the representation submitted by petitioner regarding continuity of the name of the petitioner in columns (9) and (11) of the RTC extracts. It is the case of petitioner that, inspite of the direction issued by this Court, all the three authorities have committed grave error and material irregularity in proceeding to pass the impugned orders and in discontinuing to enter the name of petitioner in all the revenue records, without canceling the grant made in favour of petitioner by the competent jurisdictional authority. To, substantiate the said stand, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has taken me through the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and pointed out that, the said authority has slipped into error in not accepting the genuine receipt for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- at the rate of Rs. 1,800/- per acre, produced by the petitioner for having deposited the upset price before the Sub-Treasury, Bangalore North. 4,500/- at the rate of Rs. 1,800/- per acre, produced by the petitioner for having deposited the upset price before the Sub-Treasury, Bangalore North. To further substantiate the said submission, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has filed the application for producing the additional documents, annexing thereto the Certificate of Credit dated 14th November, 2006 issued by the Gazetted Sub-Treasury Officer, Bangalore North Taluk, Sub-Treasury, D.C. Office Compound, Bangalore duly signed by the Gazetted Sub-Treasury Officer, Bangalore North for having deposited a sum of Rs. 4,500/-, which has been accounted in the receipts side towards 029.L.R. on 22nd September, 1984 remitted by Sri H. Basavaraj, who is none other than petitioner herein. Further, petitioner has produced the RTC extract dated 31st March, 1985 bearing the signature of the then Tahsildar and also the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore and submitted that, these documents could not be produced before the Special Deputy Commissioner since the said authority did not afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth and defend his case. Therefore, he submitted that, the Special Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order based on the available material and erred in passing the impugned order vide Annexure-Q. Hence, the said order is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the Deputy Tahsildar to reconsider the matter, before whom, petitioner can substantiate his case on the basis of the material documents that are very much supplied by the Department itself. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents, at the threshold, submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground that, all the three authorities, after thorough verification of the relevant material available on file, have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner holding that, when there is no grant as such made in favour of petitioner, the question of cancellation of the same does not arise and that, the continuity of the name of petitioner in the RTC extract has been rightly refused by all the three Competent Authorities and the same are in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. To further substantiate his submission, he has taken me through the specific finding recorded by the Special Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 30th August, 2006 vide Annexure-Q and submitted that, the said authority has considered all the aspects of the matter and the grounds urged by petitioner in the revision petition and accordingly, has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by petitioner, confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner respectively. Therefore, he submitted that, interference by this Court in the well-considered orders passed by all the three authorities is not justifiable, exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. After hearing learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents for considerable length of time and after careful evaluation of the entire material available on record, including the statement of objections filed by respondents and on perusal of the orders passed by all the three authorities, as referred above, it is manifest on the face of the said orders that, all the three authorities have not committed any error of law and material irregularity. Therefore, I do not find any good grounds as such to entertain the instant writ petition in view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the three authorities, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. It is significant to note that, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore East Taluk in his order dated-30th August, 2006 vide Annexure-Q, has recorded a finding that as per the order dated 11th February, 1988 bearing No. HUD 535 KHD 91/PWD 82 INA 85, the land in question is classified as Government land and has been transferred to the Forest Department for maintenance of the tank, for which there are valid and genuine entries in the RTC extracts. Therefore, the rejection of the request of the petitioner to continue his name in the RTC by the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram has been rightly con finned by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North, by giving cogent reasons based on documentary evidence. Therefore, the rejection of the request of the petitioner to continue his name in the RTC by the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapuram has been rightly con finned by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North, by giving cogent reasons based on documentary evidence. Further it is pertinent to note here itself that, the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 12th September, 2003, vide Annexure-P, has considered the documents produced by the petitioner which were ten in number, specifically referred at internal pages 3 and 4 and ink pages 96 and 97 arid specifically referred that, as per the entry found in the relevant RTC extract for the agricultural years 1972-73 to 1975-76, Survey Number 9 measuring 38 acres 12 guntas has been shown as “Government Tank” and that, there is no authenticated document to show that, the said land has been granted to petitioner. Further, on verification of the entire relevant documentary evidence available in the office, the Tahsildar has also specifically referred in his order that, after thorough verification of the signature of the Tahsildar in the Saguvali Chit dated 4th September, 1985 produced by petitioner, it is found that, the signature of the Tahsildar in the alleged grant stated to have been made in favour of petitioner is not tallying with the then Tahsildar, who was working in the said office at Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. Further, it is specifically observed by the Special Tahsildar in his order at internal page 4 that, the Saguvali chit is issued only after the order/notification is issued by the Deputy Commissioner granting the land and that, in the present case, there is no such order/notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner's Office. Further, the land in question has already been transferred to the Forest Department in the year 1988 itself and since then, it is in their possession. The entry could not be continued in the relevant records and the RTC extract subsequently, in view of the fact that, there is no grant made in favour of any person and that, the entries made in the RTC extract for the years 1985-86 to 1995-96 are based on false and fabricated documents. Further, it is significant to note that, petitioner has produced the RTC extract vide Annexure-J series for the agricultural years 1984-85 to 1994-95. Further, it is significant to note that, petitioner has produced the RTC extract vide Annexure-J series for the agricultural years 1984-85 to 1994-95. After careful perusal of the entries found in the said extracts vide Annexure-J series, it can be seen that, at column (12) for the agricultural years 1984-85 and 1985-86, it has not been cultivated at all and thereafter, the further entry found for the agricultural years 1986-87 to 1994-95, at column (12), sub-clause (9), crop grown is shown as 'ragi' and 'hurli'. Further, it can be seen from the said extracts that, from the agricultural years 1990-91 to 1994-95, in columns 12(4), 12(5) and 12(6), it is shown blank After seeing these records and the relevant Column 12(4) for the agricultural years 1984-85 to 1994-95, there are, no doubt, lot of inconsistencies and the same are very hard to believe. The said entries do not appear to be genuine. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, all the three authorities, after careful microscopic evaluation of the entire material available on file and after affording sufficient opportunity to petitioner, have proceeded and recorded the specific finding, holding that, there is no grant as such, made in favour of petitioner in accordance with law. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, whose order is under challenge in the instant writ petition vide Annexure-Q, after appreciation of the relevant material available on file, with reference to the government Orders, the entries found in the RTC and, on appreciation of the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner, has specifically recorded that, the claim of the petitioner in respect of the land in question is based on created, concocted and forged documents and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to claim continuity of the entries in the revenue records and the same is not acceptable. Further, the said authority has observed in a crystal clear way that, when there is no grant of land as such made in favour of petitioner herein, question of canceling the same does not arise. The said finding has been rightly made by the Competent Authority and I do not find any justification or good grounds to interfere in the well-considered order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as misconceived. Accordingly, it is dismissed.