ORDER D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J. Writ petitioners are persons who are very keen that the revenue entries in respect of the following extents of lands in different survey numbers of Sompura village, Nelamangala taluk: All the piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 54/1 ... ...0.27 Guntas 73 ... ...6.23 Guntas 84 ... ...6.00 Acres 86 ... ...7.22 Guntas 87/1 ... ...5.03 Guntas 87/2 ... ...1.28 Guntas and further following extents of land in different survey numbers of Chandanahosahalli, Sompura hobli, Nelamangala taluk: All the piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 42/1 4.00 Acres 42/2 3. 12 Guntas 43/1 3.01 guntas 43/2 2.14 Guntas 46/1 2. 08 Guntas should remain in their names, but it has been changed in favour of respondents 6, 8 and 9 in terms of two orders passed by the tahsildar, being given effect to MR No 47/2004 dated 24-3-2005 of Sompur village (copy at Annexure-Y to the writ petition) and MR No 20/2004 dated 24-3-2005 of Chandanahosahalli village, (copy at Annexure-Z to the writ petition) and have sought for quashing of these orders and for consequential mandamus to achieve their object as indicated in the beginning of this paragraph. 2. Writ petitioners basically being aggrieved by the changes effected in the mutation register in terms of the orders passed in MR No. 1/94-95, M.R. No. 16/94-95, M.R. No. 7/94-95 and M.R. No. 29/94-95 as passed on 21-6-1995, whereunder the names of some of the respondents herein came to be entered as against the subject lands, preferred appeals under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the Act) before the Assistant Commissioner in RA No 45/95-96, RA No. 93/95-96 and RA (Misc) No. 1/95-96. All these appeals came to be allowed by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the order dated 3-3-1997 [copy at Annexure-L to the writ petition) and the matters had been remanded to the tahsildar, after setting aside the orders passed by the tahsildar. However, in the meanwhile, as there were further changes in the mutation register in favour of the purchasers of some of the land from the 6th respondent Smt Gowramma, the petitioners had preferred RA No, 149/97-98 and RA No, 135/96-97. These appeals were dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the order dated 6-3-2000 (copy at Annexure-M to the writ petition). These appeals were dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the order dated 6-3-2000 (copy at Annexure-M to the writ petition). Revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act had been preferred to the Deputy Commissioner against these two orders [copies at Annexure- L & M to the writ petition) of the Assistant Commissioner in Revision Petition Nos, 1/97-98, 10.97-98, 31/98-99 and 89/2000-01 and the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the order dated 7-1-2003 [copy at Annexure-N to the writ petition] allowed the revision petitions, set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed restoration of the revenue entries as earlier and remanded the matter to the tahsildar for fresh and proper enquiry. 3. In the meanwhile, one of the purchasers from the eighth respondent in this writ petition, had preferred. WP No. 4266-69 of 2003 against the very orders of the Deputy Commissioner but those writ petitions came to be dismissed by this Court in terms of order dated. 22-1-2004 [copy at Annexure-Q to the writ petition) and this Court impressed that the tahsildar should dispose of the matter expeditiously. It is thereafter, the tahsildar has passed order dated 7 -3-2005 [copy at Annexure- W to the writ petition), where under the tahsildar has confirmed his earlier changes in terms of the order dated 21-6-1995, rejecting the objections that had been filed by the present petitioners. The further revision petition to the Deputy Commissioner as against such order of the tahsildar invoking the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Act, having come to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the order dated 6-11-2006 [copy at Annexure-AC to the writ petition) passed in Revision Petition No 112/2005-06. The petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition questioning the legality of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, affirming the order of the tahsildar vide Annexure- W to the writ petition. 4. Notices had been issued to the respondents. Sri R. Kumar, learned Government pleader is representing respondents 13 to 18; Sri H. T. Vasanthkumar, learned Counsel is representing respondents 6 and 8; respondent No 8, having died and his legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 8(a) to (c) are represented by Sri Jeevan Kumar for Sri Girikumar; and the fifth respondent-special land acquisition officer of KIADB, is represented by M/s Ashok N Nayak and Sathya Prabha. 5. 5. What is urged on behalf of the 6th respondent is that the impugned order of the tahsildar is not exactly one giving effect to the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, but as a consequence of the order passed by this Court in WP No. 4266-69 of 2003 in terms of the order dated 22-1-2004 (copy at Annexure-Q to the writ petition), which was a- petition by a person who had purchased some portion of the land in question from the sixth respondent and who now figures as eighth respondent in this writ petition, in whose writ petition an order had been made by this Court, though rejecting the writ petition, directing the tahsildar to dispose of the matter expeditiously. 6. A perusal of the order passed in the above mentioned writ petition, which reads as under: ORDER The dispute between the parties is relating to the entries in the Revenue records. There are several suits pending between the parties in the Civil Court. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering all the contentions raised by the parties, remitted the matter to the Tahsildar after notice to all the persons interested I am also of the same view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tahsildar. Hence, I find no reason to interfere in these writ petitions. However, it is a case where the Tahsildar is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Hence the following order: (a) Writ Petitions are rejected. (b) However, the Tahsildar is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible not later than six months from today. clearly indicates that while this Court declined to interfere with the matter at the instance of the petitioner therein and dismissed the writ petition, only impressed upon the tahsildar for expeditious disposal of the matter in terms of the remand order of the Deputy Commissioner and there was no independent direction in favour of either the sixth respondent or eighth respondent issued by this Court in the above writ petition. 7. 7. Submission of Sri Jeevan Kumar, learned Counsel for the eighth respondent is that during the pendency of the petition and pursuant to the order passed by the tahsildar, the revenue entries had been mutated in favour of vendor of eighth respondent earlier and has now been mutated in favour of his client; that it should not be again altered to the detriment of the eighth respondent, as the eighth respondent is the bona fide purchaser of the property for a valuation consideration from the sixth respondent. 8. The case of the petitioners as urged by Sri M. Ganesha, learned Counsel, is that the revenue entries in terms of the mutation orders passed by the tahsildar earlier in terms of MR No 2/ 1987-88 of Sompura village and MR No 16/1986-87 of Sompura village and MR No 2/ 1987-88 of Chandanahosahalli village, stood in the name of the petitioners; that such entries should not have been altered in the name of 6th respondent or 8th respondent even without annulling or modifying the earlier orders and even without hearing the petitioners. 9. It is to resolve this controversy that the learned Government Pleader was directed to produce the mutation extract register wherein recorded various orders passed for change of mutation entries. The learned Government Pleader has placed before the Court such mutation entry register of both Sompur and Chandanahosahalli villages. It is found that the revenue entries were changed in favour , of the petitioners in terms of mutation orders referred to above i.e. MR No 2/1987-88 and it is for resolving such controversy, this Court had passed the following order on 13-8-2008: In terms of the directions issued on 25. 7.2008, Smt. Asha Parveen, Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk, is present in person. The original of mutation register extract {Hakku Badalavane Vahi] for Sompura Village showing revenue entries for the period from MR. 1/ 1991 to MR. 40/1994-95 as also the mutation register of Chandanahosahalli Village showing revenue entries for period from MR. 6/ 1951-52 to MR. 7/1994-95 is placed before the Court. The register of change of mutation entry in Chandanahosahalli Village does contain the entries in MR.2/1987 in which name of the petitioners or their predecessors in WP No.18178 of 2006 figure: but in terms of MR. 6/ 1951-52 to MR. 7/1994-95 is placed before the Court. The register of change of mutation entry in Chandanahosahalli Village does contain the entries in MR.2/1987 in which name of the petitioners or their predecessors in WP No.18178 of 2006 figure: but in terms of MR. 1/1994 it has been subsequently changed to the name of respondent No.8 in WP No. 17471 of 2006 who figure as respondent No. 16 in WP No.18178 of 2006. It is to be noticed that there is no reference to, the earlier MR. 2/1987 while changes are effected in terms of MR. 1/1994. However, as it is claimed by the petitioners that in terms of MR. 2/1987 relating to Sompura Village, name of the petitioners or their predecessors in WP No.17471/2006 occurs and likewise in terms of MR.16/1986-87, name of the petitioners or their predecessors in WP No.18178/2006 occurs and to verify this aspect, register containing the entries is also necessary. The Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk is directed to place the register also containing the entries MR. 2/1987 and MR. 16/1986-87 of Sompura Village by the next date of hearing. List on 26.8.2008 for further hearing. Sri. R. Kumar, learned Government Pleader to ensure relevant records are placed before the Court. Statement, if any, can also be filed in the meanwhile. Furnish a copy of this order to Sri R. Kumar, learned Government Pleader. and accordingly the register is now placed before the Court. It is a fact that such entries are found in the name of the petitioners in the register in respect of the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. 10. Though it has been observed time and again by this Court that in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for judicial review of administrative action, this Court neither determines the right, title and interest of any party nor grants a declaration of any title in favour of either the petitioner or respondent, in respect of private properties but still time and again matters are brought before this Court asserting ownership rights in the lands and seeking for correction in the revenue entries based on such assertions. 11. 11. The ownership rights and other rights in an immovable property is acquired not by getting the names mutated in the revenue records, but if otherwise the person is either succeeding or inheriting a property in a manner known to law, the revenue records only depict such happening and cannot by itself create any right, title or interest in respect of the properties with reference to which the entries are made in the revenue records. Unfortunately, the entries are given more importance, parties who find it rather cumbersome to go to civil Court and to have their right determined, finds the ease way out by manipulating revenue officials for the change of revenue entries in their names whether it is supported by a corresponding change of ownership or not. Succession rights are another convenient way, which is more often than not misused by the revenue officials for effecting changes in the revenue records and even to conveniently mutate the names of the parties and persons whose names as stood in the records for long years, but on the basis of some claim put forth in the previous generation or even earlier, revenue entries are changed, decades after the earlier entry. 12. The present case is also one such. While sixth respondent claims as a legal heir of one Byramma, being her granddaughter, the said Byramma claim right, title and interest to this property through a gift deed of the year 1927 and therefore seeks to justify the action of the revenue authorities for effecting entries in her favour in terms of the questioned entries made in the year 1994, the petitioners claim the right to ownership of the land in terms of the some auction sale of the property in the year 1950 and evidenced by registered sale deed dated 21-8-1950 executed as per the directions of the Court pursuant to the Court auction sale. 13. While such aspects are matters eminently fit for resolution only by a Civil Court, revenue entries are only indication of change of rights from one person to another and in the context of such changes, when the revenue authorities commit several errors of law and procedure, naturally matters are inevitably brought to this Court in writ jurisdiction for judicial review of administrative action. But, the dispute is never resolved. But, the dispute is never resolved. As the dispute keeps on travelling between revenue officials and this Court and does not get resolved ultimately. A dispute of this nature can be resolved only by determination in a properly laid suit before a civil Court and not by tinkering revenue entries. 14. What is examined in writ jurisdiction in the exercise of power for judicial review of administrative action is as to whether the revenue officials who function as statutory authorities under the Act have exercised such power in a proper manner and nothing beyond. The power is also to be exercised in a bona fide manner and for a justifiable reason. It is not one which can be invoked at any point of time without any cause of action. If a revenue entry is to be altered in the year 1994-95 and contrary to what was earlier made in the year 1986-87 and 1987-88, it should be done only after proper notice to the persons in whose names the revenue entries stood prior to effecting the change. A shara or endorsement to the effect of change informing the parties with a notice or publication in terms of Form No 21 is not a satisfactory mode of such communication, which can only give scope for complaint later by the affected person that no notice had been served. Such is the complaint in the present writ petition also. 15. When the tahsildar has changed a mutation entry in the year 1994-95 based on a cause of action which the sixth respondent claims to have arisen during 1927 i.e. gift deed executed in favour of grandfather of sixth respondent, the cause is too remote and not a cause which could have been examined by revenue officials like tahsildar. Exercise of power for such purpose is clearly an instance of mala fide exercise of power, abuse of power and if not, in any way, definitely a misuse of power. It is for this reason the order passed by the tahsildar in MR No. 47/2004 of Sompura village and MR No. 20/2004 of Chandanahosahalli village of Nelamangala taluk, are quashed and as it is submitted that some part of the land had been acquired for a public purpose, it is ordered that revenue entries be retained in the name of Government in respect of the extent of land so acquired by the Government. 16. 16. In respect of the remaining extent of land, pending determination by a Civil Court of the disputes amongst the parties, the revenue entries of the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 having not been changed in any fair or proper proceedings, they have to be retained as such. 17. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute.