Judgment :- 1. A writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not one that confers High Court a special jurisdiction which it can exercise in any situation. It is in the nature of power of superintendence over the functioning of the courts and Tribunals in the State. 2. It is essentially meant to reign in the Judges and quasi judicial functionaries who function in courts and Tribunals within their jurisdiction and also to ensure that they do not function or conduct in an arbitrary manner to the detriment of the litigant or a citizen of this country. 3. When this court examines any order/Judgment passed by a court or even an order whether administrative or quasi judicial passed by a public authority, the scrutiny is to find out as to whether the Judge presiding over the court has exercised his jurisdiction within the limits of law, has been properly exercising jurisdiction conferred on him/her and likewise the same principle applies to a public authority or a statutory functionary. 4. The examination necessarily has to be on the touchstone of the statutory provisions in the exercise of which provisions the courts or authorities function. When this court examines such orders/Judgments etc., it is not as though this court can pass orders invoking all such powers conferred on the High Court under the Constitution of India or under any other statutory provisions. Any order or direction if issued in a matter of this nature, if it is one relating to inter se dispute essentially in the nature of an adversary litigation, it can never exceed the original jurisdiction which the Judge in the original court or a public authority or statutory authority of the 1st instance exercises. Even the High Court cannot pass or issue such directions either in contravention or in variance of the original limits of the statutory powers or other jurisdiction conferred on the courts and the authorities. 5. Even the High Court cannot pass or issue such directions either in contravention or in variance of the original limits of the statutory powers or other jurisdiction conferred on the courts and the authorities. 5. It is not as though the High Court can invoke any of its other powers either under the Constitution of India or under any other statutory provision while disposing of a matter arising under a particular statutory provision and in the present case, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short ‘the Act’], and with certain revenue authorities like the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner – the revenue officers each being subordinate to the next exercising administrative powers and also function as statutory functionaries under the provisions of the Act. 6. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which has its origin in the Mysore Land Revenue Code, is basically an enactment meant for identifying the alienated agricultural lands so that a record of all such land holdings is maintained, particularly, for the purpose of the revenue authorities having information to identify persons from whom revenue is assessed and collected. Raising revenue is the basic object and it is for that purpose, the name of persons in whose name holdings stand etc., are also recorded. 7. Revenue authorities do not regulate the acquisition or extinction of rights in properties including agricultural lands etc., Revenue authorities are primarily required to keep a record of the names of persons who have acquired rights for ensuring that the revenue i.e., the land revenue is collected from such persons. Such is the basic purpose of the Act. 8. 7. Revenue authorities do not regulate the acquisition or extinction of rights in properties including agricultural lands etc., Revenue authorities are primarily required to keep a record of the names of persons who have acquired rights for ensuring that the revenue i.e., the land revenue is collected from such persons. Such is the basic purpose of the Act. 8. It has become a malady of late that persons claiming interest in the agricultural lands and what with a vast extent of agricultural land alienated or non-alienated, being in the ownership of the State, having been systematically and many a times not so systematically, doled out to persons deserving or undeserving, in bits and pieces and such transfer of lands to provide for an alienated lands being brought under agricultural operation being effectuated through grants etc., and these grants not necessarily being supported by a proper documentation, in the sense, ownership in the land not being conveyed to the grantees by the execution of a proper conveyance deed as is otherwise required under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but even without that persons getting rights in the agricultural lands in Government holdings and such right being recognized by persons asserting possession etc., entries in the revenue records have acquired great importance, as many a times such entry itself is virtually a substitute for documents of title! 9. In such a state of affairs and with the passage of time, the revenue authorities becoming corrupt to the core, with an honest official being an exception and all revenue officials as a matter of rule being highly corrupt, the manipulation of revenue entries has become a favorite past time for land grabbers, unscrupulous elements who have an eye on Government lands and such persons even by manipulating entries in the revenue records try to grab the land in private ownership also! 10. 10. A person who does not have real or genuine right, title and interest in any land will always be in a position and can afford to provide incentives to revenue officials to tinker the revenue entries, to show them favours and in this rat race for getting their names mutated in the revenue records, genuine, bona fide persons who may not be so very keen to provide incentives or even an illegal graft to the revenue authorities stand to lose the battle and many a times stands to lose the land itself! 11. It is for this reason that litigation relating to orders passed by the revenue authorities acquire great importance from the land holders point of view and such matters are inevitably brought to the High Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for seeking judicial review of orders passed by the revenue authorities. 12. In this melee, the real legal position that a revenue entry does not make much difference for ownership, but it is the ownership that is primarily the basic fact based on which the revenue entries have to be made is lost sight of and persons having disputes whether within the family or outside the family about the ownership rights or even for sharing family properties find tinkering of entries in the revenue records a very convenient and vulnerable area for getting their names entered in the revenue records as it is much easier for such persons to win over the revenue authorities by providing them incentives and to seek orders in their favour, than to get their right, title, interest in the land determined by a civil court. 13. The present writ petition also has all such ingredients and situations is not really required to be examined, the drama in the present writ petition is of a quarrel amongst the father and his siblings and who has to get what portion of what extent of agricultural land which it is claimed originally belonged to the forefathers of the writ petitioner and later inherited by his father one by name G. Ramaswamy impleaded as fourth respondent and the fifth respondent – brother of the petitioner being aggrieved with certain revenue entries, is definitely not a fit matter to elicit the attention of this Court in writ jurisdiction. 14. 14. The cause for the present writ petition is that on the basis of the partition effected by the petitioner’s father though in an earlier oral partition subject property had been without dispute allotted in favour of the fifth respondent [in the year 1987] with the father having thought it proper to ensure proper settlement of the family properties in favour of his sons – petitioner and fifth respondent and having changed the sharing manner, having done so in the presence of Panchayatdars who it is claimed had resolved to give this extent of 8 guntas of land in favour of the petitioner and with the petitioner armed with such developments, though had given the report to the Tahsildar seeking for altering the revenue entries with the Revenue Inspector having reported that on the application of the petitioner having been publicised in the village, the earlier khatedar namely the fifth respondent having strongly objected to the change of the revenue entry and having declined to sign or recognize the so called Panchayat Settlement, the matter was treated as a disputed matter and the Tahsildar passing an order in terms of the order dated 3.3.2006 in RRT[DS]No.25:05-06 rejecting the application of the petitioner, but instead, apprising the parties to go to the civil court to resolve their dispute as the matter was essentially a dispute of civil nature and such is the origin of the present writ petition. 15. A further appeal against this order of the Tahsildar to the Assistant Commissioner in RA [LKP] No.34/2006-07 also having failed, as the Assistant Commissioner in terms of his order dated 18.9.2006 [copy at Annexure-F], found it proper to dismiss the appeal on noticing that the Tahsildar has passed a very correct and proper order, the undaunted petitioner even invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, purporting to be under section 136[3] of the Act, but the result was not much different as the Deputy Commissioner in terms of his order dated 20.10.2010 [copy at Annexure-K] also dismissed the revision, vacating the interim order which has been granted earlier and it is aggrieved by such orders of the Tahsildar, affirmed in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner, the revision petition dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, the present writ petition. 16. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submission of Sri. 16. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submission of Sri. Raju, learned counsel is that the revenue authorities have grossly erred and committed a mistake in law in not recognizing the Panchayat Settlement that had been worked out amongst the parties i.e., the petitioner, his brother – fifth respondent and his father – fourth respondent: that the fifth respondent who had got other properties to his share in the family partition, having sold away such properties squandered them and with father having in the presence of the villagers rearranged the sharing ratio in the year 2003, that should have been recognized by the revenue authorities and compelling the petitioner to go to the civil court is not proper order etc.,. 17. It is also pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner has acted in a most arbitrary manner, in as much as, even as per the entries in the order sheet [copy at Annexure-G] while the corresponding entry against the date 6.1.2010 which reads as under: KANNADA and though indicates that the order is pronounced on that day, nevertheless, the impugned order adverse to the interest of the petitioner being dated 20.10.2010 and as per this order the revision petition coming to be dismissed only on 20.10.2010, there is obviously two orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the same subject matter and therefore the subsequent order cannot stand in law. 18. It is also submitted that the petitioner was very eagerly looking forward to get the order dated 6.1.2010. but the impugned order being dated 20.10.2010, obviously gives rise to doubts as to the bona fides of the Deputy Commissioner acting in a proper manner in examining the revision petition and therefore the matter warrants interference in writ jurisdiction. 19. As observed in the earlier part of this order, a revenue entry is not the criteria for recognizing ownership rights. The dispute, if at all, in the present situation, is amongst the family members. What manner they share family properties is an inter se dispute amongst themselves and as rightly observed by the Tahsildar himself, dispute of this nature can be resolved by the civil court and not by the revenue authorities. The dispute, if at all, in the present situation, is amongst the family members. What manner they share family properties is an inter se dispute amongst themselves and as rightly observed by the Tahsildar himself, dispute of this nature can be resolved by the civil court and not by the revenue authorities. It is because the petitioner under wrong guidance or ill advise kept on pursuing the matter before various revenue authorities whether such authorities have jurisdiction or not and if incidentally such authorities pass orders which may not be either proper or procedurally correct or apt, that does not give rise to a cause of action to approach this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to seek for variation of the order etc… 20. This is a typical case of procedure being given too much of importance over substance. The orders passed by the revenue authorities can never confer title. Whether or not they are correct or incorrect, it is only the civil court which has the jurisdiction to determine the inter se disputes of this nature in respect of immovable properties and definitely not the revenue authorities. 21. Just because the petitioner doggedly pursued the matter before the revenue authorities, that definitely does not give rise to a cause of action to come to this court to invoke writ jurisdiction of the court for claiming relief. 22. This writ petition is nothing short of a gross misuse and abuse of the process of this court. Though at the earliest, even the Tahsildar apprised the petitioner that the proper forum for getting the disputes between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 is a civil court, the petitioner has not only wasted his own time, but also of other authorities and ultimately of this court also for no cause or justification. 23. Petitions of this nature occupy time and space of this court without any cause, without any reason and without any justification. This is nothing short of a gross misuse and abuse of the process of this court and until and unless such misuse and abuse of the process of this court, particularly, in writ jurisdiction is strongly discouraged, unscrupulous litigants, litigants without bona fides, without justifiable cause keep approaching this court invoking writ jurisdiction and occupy time and space to the detriment of genuine litigants. It is high time such petitions are discouraged. It is high time such petitions are discouraged. Entries in the revenue records are not fit subject matters in writ jurisdiction, and if at all this court examines a matter in writ jurisdiction, it is only when the revenue authorities have grossly misused and abused the powers conferred on them. In the present case, the revenue authorities have exercised their jurisdiction and statutory powers very correctly. 24. There is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and it is for this reason this writ petition is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner for having consumed not less than about an hour’s time of this court. 25. Cost to be deposited to the credit of the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee account and the Secretary of High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to ensure this amount is received and utilized properly for extending legal aid to deserving litigants who seek relief before the High Court, but cannot afford to meet the litigation costs. 26. Cost to be deposited within four weeks from today before this court by the petitioner, failing which the registry is directed to issue certificate in favour of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to realize this amount as though it is a decree passed by the civil court.