JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. The appellant is the writ petitioner who lost the battle before the learned Single Judge in challenging the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner in proceedings dated 03.08.2007 wherein the Special Deputy Commissioner reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division changing the mutation of the records but recorded the name of the appellant-writ petitioner in the mutation of the records with regard to an extent of 1 acre and 28 guntas in Sy.No.38/3 situated at Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Add!.) Taluk. 1. The common case of the contesting parties was that the impugned land belongs to the original land owner one Sri Channarayappa and then inherited by his son Sonnappa who is the grandfather of the petitioner. But in the year 1993 by proceedings dated 112.1993 of the Tahsildar the name of Sri Kakol Kempanna s/o Sonnappa was deleted, but on the other hand the contesting respondents forefather whose name is also Sonnappa got entered into the revenue records which gave rise for disputes before the revenue authorities. 2. The Assistant Commissioner by proceedings dated 08.09.2006 set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 112.1993 remitted the matter to the Tahsildar to hold a fresh de-novo enquiry and enter in the mutation records the correct name of the owners and occupants of the impugned land. 3. The appellant-writ petitioner also placed reliance on the registered Will dated 16.02.1996 executed by his grandfather in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner. After remand the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk by proceedings dated 13.07.2004 entered the name of the appellant-writ petitioner which necessitated the contesting respondent to prefer an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore who by order dated 08.09.2006 confirmed the order of the Tahsildar dated 13.07.2004. Hence a revision was preferred by the Deputy Commissioner who by order dated 03.08.2007, placing reliance on the decision of the Full Bench in the case of CN. Nagendra Singh Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and Others reported in ILR 2002 Kar 2750 reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 08.09.2006 referred to above holding that the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to enquire into and decide the dispute regarding the genuineness of the Will even for the limited purpose of making an entry in the mutation register as it falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 4. 4. The Deputy Commissioner also held that until and unless the appellant-petitioner establishes his right and title over the property in question before the appropriate Civil Court, the revenue authorities are disentitled to incorporate the name of the appellant-petitioner and the Assistant Commissioner had therefore committed serious error in confirming the order of the Tahsildar. Accordingly, the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 08.09.2006 was set aside and ordered to restore Khata of the land in Sy. No.38/3 of Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Additional Taluk in the joint names of the revision petitioner who is the contesting respondent herein as per MR.No.22/92-93 and the mutation of the records in respect of the land in question in the name of the appellant-writ petitioner was cancelled. However, liberty was given to the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their right and title over the land in question; and after the decision of the Civil Court they may approach the revenue authorities for the action as may be warranted in accordance with law.Aggrieved by the said order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 03.08.2007, the said order was challenged by the appellant-writ petitioner and the learned Single Judge, after hearing the rival contentions of the writ petitioner-appellant and the contesting respondent who reiterated their submissions which were made before the authorities below held as hereunder: "When admittedly, on the date of the application, Kakol Kempannas name was not mutated and the petitioner was claiming the same under the Will, and subsequent event which shows that the matter is hotly contested, the revenue authorities could not have gone into the question of legality of the Will. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar as well as the Assistant Commissioner mutating the name of the petitioner and directing the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to establish his title. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed." 3. Hence the present appeal. 4. Both the learned Counsel reiterated the submission made before the learned Single Judge. 1. According to Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil the claim is not merely based on the Will dated 16.02.1996 and the order of the Tahsildar after remittance is also nor merely based on the Will. 2. On the other hand Mr. Hence the present appeal. 4. Both the learned Counsel reiterated the submission made before the learned Single Judge. 1. According to Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil the claim is not merely based on the Will dated 16.02.1996 and the order of the Tahsildar after remittance is also nor merely based on the Will. 2. On the other hand Mr. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent contends that the decision of the Tashsildar dated 13.07.2004 and the Assistant Commissioner dated 08.09.2006 also, after remittance were in the light of the Will dated 16.02.1996 and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in CN. Nagendra Singh (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 3. It is settled law that if the title or right set up by one party to an immovable property is disputed by another party such right to title cannot be enquired into by revenue Courts much less any decision be rendered for any purpose whatsoever.In the first place, the revenue Court constituted under the Act can only go into questions of assessment, recovery of land revenue and land revenue administration and it has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title in respect of an immovable property which exclusively vests in the Civil Court. 6. Be that as it may, the Deputy commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge in their order dated 03.08.2007 and 04.09.2008 have given liberty to both the authorities to stake their claim based on the title based on the Will dated 16.02.1996 relied on by the appellant-wit petitioner or the title and possession relied on by the contesting respondent, as it is settled law such questions as to the title which stand as a basis to the entire lis between the parties in the instant case can be gone into by the Civil Court. Therefore, finding no reason to interfere with the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but such civil litigation initiated against by either party shall be disposed of without being prejudiced by any of the findings rendered by the revenue authorities, much less by this Court in the above proceedings.