ORDER Ramesh, J. Petitioner has sought for to quash the order passed by the land Tribunal, Gulbarga on 31.8.1977 vesting the land in Sy.No.170/2 measuring 19.28 acres of Jogur Village, in the Government thereby rejecting Form 7 filed by the 3rd respondent and also on the ground that no notice has been issued to the vendor of the petitioner one Rachaiah Matapathi (@ Swamy) and only by issuing notice to one Venkata Rao - 4th respondent who had sold the property in favour of the vendor of the petitioner in the year 1967. According to the petitioner, property in Sy.No.170/2 is measuring 19.28 acres originally belonged to one Venkata Rao who was in possession and cultivation and from him this Rachiah Swami had purchased the property during 1967. Originally the vendor of the petitioner had filed WP 5091/1980 challenging the order of the Land Tribunal vesting the land in question in the Government by order dated 31.8.1977 on the ground that the said order is being passed without hearing him and without notice to him and also without impleading him as a party by virtue of the sale deed in his favour dated 29.4.1967. During pendency of the writ petition, since the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was constituted, the matter stood transferred to the appellate authority and it was numbered as LRA 45/1986 and once again on such abolition of the appellate authority, matter stood transferred to this Court. On filing of the Civil Petition 10328/1991 seeking for conversion of the appeal and the same was allowed. In the meanwhile, it transpires on the expiry of the original petitioner Rachaiah Swamy, his son Kasinath sold the property to the present petitioner. An application was filed by one Mahadevappa to come on record before the appellate authority since he had purchased the property on 30.4.1984. However, the said application was pending consideration. It appears Mahadevappa had filed a Civil Petition 011 the strength of the sale deed purchased and also getting himself impleaded in the appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority to come in the place of Rachaiah Swamy. Since the application is pending consideration, the same is allowed. Permitted to amend cause title. The name of Mahadevappa be indicated as petitioner in the place of Rachaiah Swamy. Since the application is pending consideration, the same is allowed. Permitted to amend cause title. The name of Mahadevappa be indicated as petitioner in the place of Rachaiah Swamy. It is also seen on the death of Rachaiah Swamy, his legal representatives also filed an application before this Court on 30.10.1980 to come on record in WP 5091/1980 in the place of Rachaiah Swamy. That application is shown to have not been allowed. Even the vakalath is also shown to be filed on behalf of them. On noticing this fact, it is appropriate this application be allowed to come on record. The application is allowed. It is for the counsel representing the petitioner to amend the cause title. As noted above, Mahadevappa who is said to have purchased the land from Kasinath S/o Rachaiah Swamy is also permitted to come on record as one of the petitioner in addition to the sons of Rachaiah Swamy on the death of Rachaiah Swamy. It is the case of Rachaiah Swamy that notice if any issued by the Land Tribunal to Venkata Rao - 4th respondent in the original petition in WP 5091/1980, cannot be treated as notice to this Rachaiah Swamy who had purchased the property from Venkata Rao. The order of the Land Tribunal in vesting the land without considering the claim of the original petitioner Rachaiah Swamy was a non-est order as the land in question was never being cultivated by the 300 respondent Shivaraya. Only on the bare statement of Shivaraya, according to the petitioner, the Land Tribunal ought not have vested the land in the Government on the ground that he was cultivating the land for 4-5 years and that he is not interested in claiming occupancy rights when this Rachaiah Swarny had purchased the property in the year 1967 from Venkata Rao and that the order passed by the Land Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader. This anomaly of not issuing notice to Rachaiah Swarny could have been caused only because the notice was issued to the 4th respondent in WP 5091/1980 who had sold the property to Rachaiah Swarny way back in the year 1967 but proper entries were not made in the revenue records. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader. This anomaly of not issuing notice to Rachaiah Swarny could have been caused only because the notice was issued to the 4th respondent in WP 5091/1980 who had sold the property to Rachaiah Swarny way back in the year 1967 but proper entries were not made in the revenue records. Often it is noticed that whenever transfer of property has taken place from one person to another person by way of sale, mortgage or by way of a registered sale deed or gift or exchange, the five modes of transfer-as is envisaged in the Transfer of Property Act, necessarily mutation entries should be parried out in the revenue records. There has to be co-ordination between the registering authorities and the revenue authorities. As per S.17 of the Indian Registration Act, it is compulsory that property valued more than Rs.100/- has to be registered. That conveys and sanctions such transfer from one person to the other. It is often noticed that property is being sold by a person in favour of several persons taking advantage of the anomaly of want of specific entries in the revenue records. Any prudent person before purchasing a property would necessarily approach the revenue authorities seeking for clarification or issuance of an endorsement as to the possession or encumbrance on the property and that would form the basis for him to go for negotiations and to purchase the property or get the property transferred in his name in any mode of transfer provided under the Transfer of Property Act. It is being noticed that neither the purchaser nor the registering authority are performing their obligations soon after such transfers are taking place by way of registration and re-conveyance and transfer the title or interest from the vendor to the vendee or transferee. In this regard what is being noticed is, when the original entries in the revenue records continue even after such transfers or assignments, the person who is interested in purchasing the property is being mislead on some assurance or some false promise and gets into problems in fighting litigation with the prior purchasers. In this regard what is being noticed is, when the original entries in the revenue records continue even after such transfers or assignments, the person who is interested in purchasing the property is being mislead on some assurance or some false promise and gets into problems in fighting litigation with the prior purchasers. If the said fact of earlier sale or transfer would not have been disclosed by the original purchaser or registering authorities it not only leads to multiplicity of proceedings but also causes financial hardship to the subsequent purchasers of the same property which had been sold earlier to some other purchaser. For want of knowledge, even for an ordinary man of prudence mere enquiry with the revenue authorities would not be sufficient because of the fact the revenue authorities have only maintained the original entries in the usual course as is noticed in the years of practice, without making proper timely entries of such change of title from the original owner to the subsequent purchase or from original transferor to the transferee. This anomaly is invariably found in all the records maintained for Want of compliance of the provisions of S.128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 although the Act mandates such entry to be made within a reasonable time after following .the procedure under the said sections. For want of such strict compliance by the purchaser or for lack of responsibility and inaction on the part of the registering authorities in intimating this aspect to the revenue authorities well within time, the ordinary man is forced to go through the ordeal of fighting litigation and often it is also being noticed even in respect of carrying out mutation entries on subsequent changes like succeeding to the property as legal heirs on the death of the original propositus, such anomalies are occurring and even the lands which are notified for acquisition are also notified in the name of the original kathedar in whose name the property stands although he has died several years back, for want of entries of the names ~f persons who succeed him and who are in real possession or cultivation of the property are not notified. These anomalies have to be rectified to avoid all such complications and it requires due compliance of S.128 & 129 of the Land Revenue Act. These anomalies have to be rectified to avoid all such complications and it requires due compliance of S.128 & 129 of the Land Revenue Act. Though the law is clear on the point, but it is either not meticulously followed or being implemented and thus causing various litigation and hardship to the parties and also at the cost of the State exchequer as well. It may be relevant at this juncture to extract the provisions of S.128 & 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which reads: S:128: Acquisition of rights to be reported: 1. Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift lease or otherwise, any right as holder, occupant, owner mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof, shall report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the prescribed officer of the village within three months from the date of such acquisition, and the said officer shall at once give a written acknowledgement of the receipt of the report to the person making it: Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the prescribed officer: Provided further that any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the prescribed officer. Provided also that any person reporting under this sub-section the acquisition by him of a right in partition in respect of the land shall annex with the report a sketch showing the metes and bounds and other prescribed particulars of such land and such person shall get the sketch prepared by a Licensed Surveyor. 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may, by notification, appoint any Revenue Officer to whom a report under sub-section (1) may be made in which case such officer shall give a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such report to the person making it, and forward the report to the prescribed officer of the village concerned. 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may, by notification, appoint any Revenue Officer to whom a report under sub-section (1) may be made in which case such officer shall give a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such report to the person making it, and forward the report to the prescribed officer of the village concerned. 3. If any person makes a report under sub-see (1) or sub-section (2): a. after the period of three months but within the period of one year from the date of acquisition of the right, the report shall be received on payment of penalty of two rupees; b. after a period of one year from the date of such acquisition, the report shall be received on payment of a penalty of not less than two rupees but not exceeding ten rupees, as may be ordered: (i) by the Tahsildar, in case the report is made under sub-sec. (1) to the prescribed officer, or (ii) by the Revenue Officer, in case the report is made to such officer under sub-sec. (2) 4. No document by virtue of which any person acquires a right in any land as holder, occupant, owner, mortgage, landlord or tenant or assignee of the rent or revenue thereunder, shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 unless the person liable to pay the registering authority such fees as may be prescribed for making the necessary entries in the record of rights and registers referred to in S.129; and, on the registration of such a document, the registering authority shall make a report of the right to the prescribed officer. S.129: Registering of mutations and register of disputed cases: 1. The prescribed officer shall enter in the Register of Mutations every report made to him under sub-sec (1) of sub-section 128 or received by him under sub-sec.(2) or sub-sec.( 4) of the said section. 2. Whenever a prescribed officer makes as entry in the Register of Mutations, he shall at the same time post up a complete copy of the entry in a conspicuous place in the chavadi and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing from the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations to be interested in the mutation, and to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein. 3. 3. Should any objection to any entry made under sub-sec.(I) in the Register of Mutations be made either orally or in writing to the prescribed officer, it shall be the duty of the prescribed officer to enter the particulars of the objections in a register or disputed cases. 4, The objections entered in the register of disputed cases and such other objections as may be made during the enquiry shall be enquired into and disposed of by such officer and in such manner as may be prescribed. Orders disposing of such objections shall be recorded in the Register of Mutations by such officer. 5. The officer holding an enquiry under sub-section (4) shall have all the powers under Chapter III that a Revenue Officer has in making formal or summary enquiry under this Act 6. Entries in the Register of Mutations shall be tested and if found correct or after correction, as the case may be, shall be certified by such officer as may be prescribed. 7. The transfer of entries from the Register of Mutations to the Record of Rights shall be effected in the prescribed manner, provided that any entry in the Register of Mutations shall not be transferred to the Record of Rights until such entry has been duly certified. A clear reading of the above sections makes it clear it is On the part of the person who gets the property or interest at the first instance as per S.128(1) to report such getting of interest in the property on such transfer made to him by the vendor or the transferor to the revenue authorities within three months from the date of such acquisition. However, if it is a registered document, it is for the Registering Authority to intimate the concerned revenue authorities as per the proviso and not for the transferee and thereafter, there is a procedure provided on the part of the revenue authorities to be followed and simultaneously as per S.128( 4) casts an obligation on the part of the registering authority. The registering authority shall make a report of the right to the prescribed authority to make necessary entries in the record of rights and registers as is provided under S.129 of the Land Revenue Act which ultimately sets the current position on record to know who is the person who has got interest and right in the property on such transfer being made. It is noticed that there is a serious lapse on the part of the revenue authorities and also on the part of the registering authorities for non-compliance of provisions of S.128 & 129 of the Land Revenue Act. In the present case, it is noticed that on such transfer being made by the 4th respondent Venkata Rao to Rachaiah Swamy who had filed a petition originally, no such entries are being made in the revenue records which ultimately resulted in the Land Tribunal not issuing notice to Rachaiah Swamy who had purchased the property and who ought to have been heard in the matter when the matter was pending before the Land Tribunal. In stead, notice was once again sent to the original owner although he had no interest in the property which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Of course notice is issued to a party who is not necessary to the proceedings; on the other hand, necessary party was not brought on record as no notice was issued to him, for non-compliance of the requirement as provided under S.128 and 129 of the Land Revenue Act. As such, the present petitioner who has come on record as a purchaser of the property from the son of Rachaiah Swamy steps into the shoes of Rachaiah Swamy to assert his right although the original petitioner’s right is still to be adjudicated by the Land Tribunal as to the fact whether the land in question was really the subject matter of tenancy of the 3rd respondent or it was only the original petitioner viz., Rachaiah Swamy who was cultivating the land on such purchase and from him the present petitioner derives title since he purchased the property from Kasinath s/o Rachaiah Swamy. Unless and until such rights are determined by the Land Tribunal as to whether the land is a tenanted land or not basically by giving an opportunity to the present petitioner who steps into the shoes of Rachaiah Swamy, the order of vesting of land in the Government On the ground that the 3rd respondent did not claim his right as he has got excess land, will put this petitioner in a dilemma or his interest is also prejudiced. For the present, the right of the petitioner if any, is only to have a say in the matter and to defend his case to the effect whether the land in question is not a tenanted land and was not the subject matter of tenancy of the 3rd respondent. It is for the respondent authorities to verify once again from the factual position as to whether the land in question was the subject matter of tenancy and whether the land was being cultivated by the 3rd respondent prior to or as On 1.3.1974. In the event if it is found that it is being cultivated by the 3rd respondent, although he did not claim his right, then the right of the petitioner would be at stake. In the event petitioner is successful in proving that the land was not the subject matter of tenancy and at no point of time or as on 1.3 .1974 the 3rd respondent was a tenant, it is for the Tribunal to take a decision according to law. Of course, while referring to the right of this petitioner what is being noticed specifically is the anomaly that is being invariably found and neglected by the revenue authorities all because of non-compliance of the provisions of S.128 & 129 of the Land Revenue Act which is clear as is noted above. It is time to remind the Government to take timely action to make necessary changes from time to time in the revenue records. It is time to remind the Government to take timely action to make necessary changes from time to time in the revenue records. The Sub-registrars are duty bound to intimate the revenue authorities in time as per S .128(4) to avoid multiplicity of litigation from the hands of unscrupulous vendors who once again transfer the property although a transaction has already taken place in the hands of one of the purchasers and the timely action of the revenue authorities would form the basis for any subsequent purchaser who intends to purchase the property over whom fraud could not be played by the original transferor or the vendor when there is a transfer from the first party to the second party and thereby once again the first party shall not venture to transfer title or interest to a third party or any other person for lack of knowledge of the intended subsequent purchaser. 4. It is needles to say it is duty bound on the part of the revenue authorities and the Sub-Registrar as per S.128 (4) to invariably intimate the fact of transfer of interest or ownership from the first party to the second party to the concerned revenue authorities so that concerned revenue authorities will make the mutation entries in the concerned register and also proper entries in the revenue register after following the procedure as per S.129 of the Land Revenue Act. Ultimately, any intended purchaser would get himself verified about the status of the property whether before he could go for any such purchase or seek for transfer of interest from the person who has got a right, title and interest so that he will not be mislead. For want of these entries in the revenue records and for want of proper information from the concerned Department of the Government, often purchasers are being mislead and get into problems and hardship. For want of these entries in the revenue records and for want of proper information from the concerned Department of the Government, often purchasers are being mislead and get into problems and hardship. It is high time to intimate the Revenue Department and the concerned Department to meticulously follow the procedure as provided under S.128 & 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and also it should be made mandatory as a matter of responsibility on the part of the Government to save the public from the precarious situation and also there shall be timely action by the revenue authorities without there being any delay on their part in making entries in the mutation register and other registers in the revenue office and in the Corporation/Municipality in city limits to avoid future complications. For the present, in view of the legal position and also for want of communication of the notice, any order passed by the Land Tribunal i.e., the impugned order has to be interfered with and it requires reconsideration by the Land Tribunal after due notice to the present petitioner who is said to have purchased the property from the original vendor Venkata Rao. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed. Matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal, Gulbarga to dispose of the same in accordance with law after due notice to both the parties. Government Pleader to communicate this order to the Government and the Government in turn shall direct Secretary to Revenue Department to circulate this order in the department to follow the procedure as provided under S .128 & 129 of the Land Revenue Act for due compliance and taking follow up action. For such non-compliance by the concerned Revenue Authorities, the Department shall prescribe some norms to initiate action.