ORDER N.K. Patil, J. 1. Petitioner, questioning the order dated 3rd January 2005 passed by second respondent in proceedings No. RRT. (2) GR.272/1995-96 vide Annexure-J, has presented the instant writ petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner claims to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy. No. 11 measuring 01 acres 20 guntas situate at Venkoji Rao Khane Village, Begur hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Further, the case of petitioner is that, the land in question was granted to him in the year 1952-53 and the said land comes within the jurisdiction of Madivala Village Panchayth and that, petitioner has been paying the required taxes in respect of the said land. Be that as it may. 3. The second respondent has initiated suo motu proceedings invoking Sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and passed the ex-parte order dated 5th August 1998 directing the competent authority to cancel the entries pertaining to the petitioner in the revenue records and to take possession of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed the application to recall the said order dated 5th August 1998 directing to cancel the entries found in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. In reply to the said application, the second respondent has issued the endorsement stating that, if petitioner is aggrieved by his order, petitioner is permitted to approach the appropriate legal forum. Accordingly, petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 44790/2001 before this Court, assailing the correctness of the order passed by second respondent dated 5th August 1998 as well as the endorsement issued by the said authority. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 28th October 2003 and the writ petition filed by petitioner was allowed and the order passed by second respond was set aside and the matter was remitted back to second respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 28th October 2003 and the writ petition filed by petitioner was allowed and the order passed by second respond was set aside and the matter was remitted back to second respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. After the remand of the matter, the second respondent has taken up the matter for consideration by conducting enquiry and after affording opportunity to petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 3rd January 2005 vide Annexure-J and held that, the entries found in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in question are created and concocted entries and accordingly, has cancelled the entries found in the record of rights and further directed the Tahsidar, Bangalore South Taluk to round off the related entries concerned the land in question in the revenue records such as IL, RR, RTC and also all other allied registers/records and to show as cancelled by quoting the reference number and date of the said order. Further, the said authority directed the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk to take possession of the suit land on behalf of the Government by duly evicting the person/persons whomsoever in possession of the same in accordance with law and ensure proper preservation of the same on behalf of the Government. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent, has presented the instant writ petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 5. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the land in question has been granted to the petitioner under the land grant order in the year 1952-53 and thereafter, the name of the petitioner has been certified in the revenue records vide Annexure A and also in the index of lands vide Annexure B and that, the name of petitioner is found in the record of rights for agricultural years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 and thereafter, the said names are not continued in the record of rights. When petitioner has requested to continue the said entries in the record of rights and other revenue records, without considering the said request, the second respondent has initiated the proceedings under Sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act on the basis of the report from the Tahsildar dated 30th September 1995. 6. After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by second respondent, it emerges that, the second respondent, thorough evaluation of the original records, after conducting enquiry and after affording opportunity to the petitioner and after thorough evaluation of the original records available on file, has specifically held that, the entries found in the record of rights in the name of the petitioner are not on the basis of any order passed by the competent authority or that, the land was granted in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the said entries cannot be taken into consideration. Further, the said authority has observed that, the land in question is a ‘Government Tank Bed’ area. It was the specific case of the petitioner before the second respondent that, the entries found in IL and RR are genuine since the said land was granted by the Deputy Commissioner vide Darkhasth Order dated 10th November 1952 in No.62/52-53 and that, the same has been mutated vide M.R. No. 12/1969-70 and necessary entries to that effect were made in the RTC. If the said case of petitioner was true, then, there is absolutely nothing which prevented the petitioner from obtaining the certified copies of those documents and cause production of the same for consideration before the said authority and the same has not been done and instead, petitioner has only produced the notarized true copies of the documents such as IL, RR, RTC for the period from 1960-61 to 1967-68, 1987-88 and 1988-89, Madivala village Panchayath Demand Register extracts for the years 1981-82, 1986-87, 1988-89 and 1990-91 along with a few tax paid receipts which are not admissible for evidence. Further, the said authority has observed that, petitioner has kept silent on the basis that, there is some entry found in the revenue records on the basis of the order passed by the Tahsildar and on the basis of the alleged Darkhast order dated 10th November 1952. Further, the said authority has observed that, petitioner has kept silent on the basis that, there is some entry found in the revenue records on the basis of the order passed by the Tahsildar and on the basis of the alleged Darkhast order dated 10th November 1952. Therefore, the second respondent has rightly observed that there is absolutely nothing which prevented the petitioner from obtaining the certified copy of those documents and cause production of the same for consideration before the authority. Further, it is specifically observed by the said authority that, the Tahsildar of the Taluk who is the custodian of the records in particular, the land grant files/registers, mutation registers the regarding transfer of title, RTC indicating possession and cultivation particulars etc, has reported in his report dated 30th September 1995 that, the related entries made in RTC showing the RR No. as 264 and M.R. No. as 12/1969-70 are created entries, as no such entries are found to have been made in the original mutation register to that effect. Further, it is observed that, for any entry to be made in the record of rights, it’s base shall be the ‘certification’ ordered in the mutation register of the concerned village and in the absence of any such certification as required under Section 129(4) or (6) of the Act, any entry found to have been made in the record of rights is of no legal consequence and such entry/entries shall meet the fate of cancellation. Further, it is observed that, no prudent person would readily agree with the view that, the mutation i.e. transfer of katha of the land granted during the year 1952-53 is and could be effected during the year 1969-70, i.e. after a long lapse of seventeen years. The authorities are duty bound to effect the mutation based on ‘Certificate of Grant’ within the reasonable period from the date of grant and even otherwise the grantees are also at liberty to approach the authorities for expediting such an action and normally no grantee will keep quiet without getting his name mutated in the revenue records for so long. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he has not produced in certified copy of the original documents in respect of the land in question. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, he has not produced in certified copy of the original documents in respect of the land in question. Therefore, the second respondent has opined that, the claim of petitioner is bereft of reasoning and the entries so made are with an ulterior motive of making a ‘wrongful gain’ of the suit land belonging to Government. Therefore, having no other alternative, the said authority has directed the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk to round off all the related entries concerning the suit land made in the revenue records such as IL, RR, RTC and all other allied registers/records as they are all based on created, bogus and concocted entries. It is further significant to note that, when this matter was pending adjudication before this Court since 2005, after nearly expiry of four years also, petitioner has not chosen to produce at least before this Court, any piece of authenticated document or certified copy of the land grant made in favour of the petitioner except placing reliance on the stand taken before the second respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner, When the entries are not supported with any land grant order or any authenticated document as such produced by petitioner, the second respondent has rightly passed the impugned order, after conducting thorough enquiry and discussing elaborately, by recording valid and cogent reasons. Hence, in view of the well considered order passed by the second respondent, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, interference by this Court, in the impugned order is uncalled for. Therefore, I decline to interfere in the impugned order by entertaining the instant writ petition and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.