Judgment :- 1. Whether a person like the petitioner has acquired good title, interest and what not, under two sale transactions of the same day, dated 19.4.1995 said to have been executed by respondents Nos.10 to 12 who in turn claim right, title and interest in the subject lands under a grant proceedings evidenced by a saguvali chit dated 5.9.1978 to an extent of 4 acres 38 guntas each, in gomal land bearing Sy.Nos.49, 52 and 53 situated at Benagatte Grama, Shanthi Grama Hobli, Hassan taluk and district, irrespective of such a grant, having been cancelled by revenue authorities subsequently, and particularly as is perhaps sought to be done after a lapse of about 18 years from the date of the initial grant can never be determined by revenue authorities by themselves as they are the very authorities who are acting so and validity of such actions if any person wants to get tested can be done so, only by making the orders if any subject matter of a civil suit impleading necessary parties and not by way of jumping into the High Court by invoking writ jurisdiction Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. 2. But definitely not even before such proceedings have in fact happened i.e., even before the grant orders or in any way cancelled by the revenue authorities and more so in respect of an order passed at an interlocutory stage, an order passed during the pendency of some proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, at the instance of interested villagers who feel aggrieved that a land reserved for pasteurization of village cattle described as gomal land should not have been divulged by the revenue authorities even in the year 1978 as per the grant orders. 3. Assuming that the Assistant Commissioner has by his impugned order initiated such a process for inquiring into the situation by directing the Tahsildar to take action under the provisions of Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and Grant Rules, 1969 and the Deputy Commissioner in his turn has lent further support to such an order, that proceeding definitely does not merit examination in writ jurisdiction. 4. It is in this background petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs. “1. 4. It is in this background petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs. “1. To issue writ of certiorari quashing the orders of respondent No.2, 1 and the KAT Bangalore, passed in case No. R.A. 191/1995-96, Case No. R.A. 66/2001-02 and passed in revision petition No.304/2005, dated 10.01.2001, 07.03.2005 and 20.08.2010 respectively, and drop the proceedings in the interest of justice. The copies of the orders are produced at Annexures A,B and C. 2. To grant such other relief’s as deemed fit by this Honorable Court under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 5. Submission of Sri.N.R. Krishnappa, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Commissioner could not have exercised his appellate power under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to entertain any appeal at the instance of respondents 4 to 9 claiming to be the villagers in the village where the gomal land is located to condone the delay of 18 years in preferring the appeal and that too without passing express orders to get over the glaring delay for the entertaining the appeal and therefore grounds to assume jurisdiction not available in law. It is in this background the present writ petition for the brief as noticed above. 6. Submission of Sri.N.R. Krishnappa is that it is nothing short of a gross misuse and abuse of powers by the revenue authorities both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy commissioner in permitting such proceedings to develop and to direct the Tahsildar to initiate action under Rule 25. 7. Mr. R. Omkumar, learned AGA on his part submits that there is no time limit stipulated for initiation of action under Rule 25 and as the authorities had noticed the grantee had not adhered to the conditions such as the land should be brought under cultivation within the stipulated time, the action initiated even at this point of time is not only reasonable but also justified and as such no interference more so when action is yet to be taken by the appropriate authority; that the petition is without any purpose, without any merit , is frivolous and to be dismissed. 8. 8. Even assuming a proceeding of the nature under Rule 25 takes place and results in an order adverse to the interest of the petitioner, ultimately if the petitioner claiming to have acquired right, title and interest under some grantee arrayed as respondents No. 10 to 12 to the petition and when the revenue authorities by express orders cancel the original grant in favour of the vendors of such persons, the legality of such proceedings can be examined only before the Civil Court particularly the question of acquiring valid and proper title being involved in such a situation and neither the revenue authorities nor this Court in the exercise of articles 226/227 jurisdiction can embark on such an adventure. The High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not examine questions of title which inevitably involve disputed facts and controversies and such questions are always relegated to be examined and answered by the Civil courts. 9. Invoking jurisdiction of the High court in writ jurisdiction at a stage even before the proceedings results in any order is nothing short of a gross misuse and abuse of the process of this Court and therefore this writ petition is dismissed levying exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- for having wasted the valuable judicial time of the Court, meant for being utilized/shared amongst all bonafide and genuine litigants in the State. 10. Cost to be deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from today, before this Court and to the credit of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Bangalore and to be utilised by the committee for providing legal aid only, to litigants who approach this Court with bonafide grievances but cannot meet/afford the cost of litigation. 11. If the deposit is not made within four weeks from today the registry of this Court is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the Legal Services Committee to realize the amount as though it is a decree passed by the Civil Court. 12. Misc.W.Nos. 1238/11 and 1239/11 do not survive for examination and are disposed of.