Judgment 1. Writ petitioners are nobody to question the revenue entries whether as it prevailed prior to the impugned order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner exercising his jurisdiction under section 136[3] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, impugned in this writ petition [copy at Annexure-G] or pursuant to the order etc., as the subject entries are required to be mutated in the revenue records reflecting the interest of persons in whose favour the Judgment and decree has been rendered by the civil court and not in any other manner. 2. Petitioners who claim to have purchased some agricultural lands measuring totally an extent of 7 acres 25 guntas in as many as fourteen survey numbers of Vasanthapura Village, Subramanyapura Post, Bangalore South Taluk, are aggrieved by the fluctuation of fortunes one after the other in the revenue entries and have sought for the following prayers. [i] Issue writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dt.28.8.2009 passed by the 1st respondent in revision petition No.16/2005-06, vide Annexure-G. [ii] Issue writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dt.2.5.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent in revision petition No.258/2004-05, vide Annexure-F by allowing the above writ petition. [iii] To grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case”. 3. Mr. Nagaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that while the petitioners have acquired good title to the subject property as respondents 7 to 17 in whose favour the civil court has granted Judgment and decree, have sold the land conveying right, title and interest to the petitioners in terms of the sale transaction dated 22.6.2006, claim to be aggrieved because the revenue authorities, particularly, now the first respondent – Special Deputy Commissioner in terms of the impugned order directed as under: “In these circumstances, the Order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore in No.RA/S/258/2004-05 dated 2.5.2005 is upheld. For the foregoing reasons, the matter is remanded to the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore with specific directions to issue Notices to both the parties, afford them sufficient opportunity to put forth their pleas in the matter along with the documents such as the Decree in the Civil Court, orders of the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court etc., in support of their respective claims as well as status position in the matter as on date, verify, examine as well as consider them and then take a decision in the matter as may be warranted in accordance with law and rules. With the above observations and directions, the revision petition is disposed of.” 4. TheAssistant Commissioner, in turn, at the instance of respondents 4 to 6 in this writ petition, had set aside the entries in the revenue records pursuant to the proceedings in MR.2/2004-05 where under the Tahsildar had mutated the revenue entries from the name of the propositus, namely, one Munibyrappa, in favour of respondents 7 to 17 on the premise that they have got share in respect of the subject properties in terms of the Judgment and decree of the civil court. 5. It was this proceedings which was questioned by respondents 4 to 6 in an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, contending that the final decree proceedings were still pending before the civil court and in the meanwhile, change of entries from the propositus to one or other of the parties to the suit was not proper. That argument found favour with the Assistant Commissioner who set aside the proceedings in MR.2/2004-05 and directed the entries to be made once the civil proceedings in FDP 4/2000 pending before the civil court is finalized etc.. 6. It is against this order, the present respondents 7 to 17 it appears had filed revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, but without much success as the Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 28.8.2009 affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 7. Petitioners though were not parties to the proceedings before the revenue authorities, have made themselves bold to approach this court to question such orders. 8. I have heard Sri. Nagaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R. Omkumar, learned Additional Government appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri. N G Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6, Sri. Petitioners though were not parties to the proceedings before the revenue authorities, have made themselves bold to approach this court to question such orders. 8. I have heard Sri. Nagaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R. Omkumar, learned Additional Government appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri. N G Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6, Sri. Shivaraj, learned counsel for the respondents 7 to 17 and perused the record, considered the submissions made at the Bar. 9. The present writ petition, to say the least, is most frivolous writ petition, abusing the process of this court and the petitioners have approached this court without any rhyme or reason or cause of action. 10. Writ proceedings are not one to recognize civil rights, particularly, property rights. If the petitioners are claiming right, title and interest to the subject property under the respondents 7 to 17, it is for them to go to a civil court and get their title declared from the civil court and not to seek entries in the revenue records to be tinkered with or somehow manage to get into the revenue records. At any rate, there is no possibility of such result by filing the present writ petition. 11. There is no need to disturb the order passed by the revenue authorities in proceedings of this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Without prejudice to the petitioners’ right, if any, elsewhere, this writ petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.30,000/- levied on the petitioners in favour of respondents 4, 5 and 6 who can share this cost in equal proportion. Cost to be deposited before this court within four weeks from today, failing which the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the respondents 4, 5 and 6 to realize the amount as though it is a decree passed by the civil court. 13. This writ petition is by the respondents 7 to 17 in the aforesaid writ petition and who figured as revision petitioners before the Special Deputy Commissioner and who had been arrayed as respondents before the Assistant Commissioner. 14. There is no merit in this petition either and for the reasons mentioned in the above order passed in WP No.27903 of 2009 filed by the purchasers, orders follow in this petition also. 15. 14. There is no merit in this petition either and for the reasons mentioned in the above order passed in WP No.27903 of 2009 filed by the purchasers, orders follow in this petition also. 15. While result cannot be different in the present writ petition also which is to be dismissed, with the petitioners in this writ petition being parties to the proceedings, no cost is levied on them. 16. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners and with liberty to seek for modification of the entries in the revenue records in terms of the Judgment and decree of the civil court once it is finalized, this writ petition is dismissed. 17. In view dismissal of writ petition, Misc. W. 12468 of 2009 for vacating the interim order of stay does not survive for consideration as the interim order gets terminated automatically with the dismissal of the writ petition and it is also accordingly dismissed.