JUDGMENT 1. Manipulation of revenue officials for getting entries in the revenue records mutated in the name of one or the other person, whether by claiming title under a sale deed executed by a person who did not himself have any entries in the revenue records or claiming as legal heir of ancestor in whose name entry stood at some point of time in the remote past and not recently or till the date when change is sought for are all manipulative exercises indulged in by persons claiming property rights only before the revenue authorities, but not mustering courage to approach the proper forum for determination of such rights which is only a civil court. It is more so when the subject land happens to be in the vicinity of highly urbanized area and land value shoots up, purchasers – persons claiming to have acquired title and interest under a subsequent transaction, find it easy to manipulate the revenue authorities for getting entries in the revenue records rather than treading on the right royal path of approaching civil court for determination of their rights. 2. The present writ petitions appear to be not any better wherein petitioners are seeking for quashing the orders passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore south Taluk (copy at Annexure-U). 3. Attempt on the part of the writ petitioners to get over this order though did not meet with much success in an appeal under section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Assistant Commissioner and even further attempt before the Deputy Commissioner purporting to invoke his revisional jurisdiction under section 136(3) of the Act also being not fruitful, the present writ petition before this court. 4. Submission of Sri. Poovayya, learned counsel for the petitioners is that while petitioners’ name had been mutated in the revenue records as per sale transactions registered in the year 2001 said to have been executed by one Appaiah- person in whose favour it is claimed the Special Tahsildar had re-granted such extent of land under two re-grant orders one of the year 1997 in an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas {copy at Annexure–A and another of the year 2002 in an extent of 10 guntas in Sy. No. 20/5 of Roopena Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and therefore the proceedings that were initiated by the petitioners and culminating in the orders passed by the Tahsildar for mutating the revenue entry from the name of one Srinivasrao – erstwhile land owner and later Appaiah as a person in whose favour land had been re-granted and on such strength of the sale deeds having some semblance of continuity and justification whereas the seventh respondent, on the other hand, had manipulated the revenue authorities, Tahsildar for getting his name mutated in the revenue records as per order at Annexure-U by the Special Tahsildar which has been left undisturbed is not an order that is justifiable in law nor based on any material on record, particularly, as seventh respondent had only claimed as a legal heir of one Lingappa who it is claimed had purchased the subject land and on certain other premise was clearly erroneous and therefore the order at Annexure-U deserves to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Sri Tharanath Poojary, learned counsel for the seventh respondent, would vehemently oppose the writ petition, submitting that the very basis for re-grant which is also not a proper order as re-grant order was not pursuant to any valid application in law, but more importantly the subject re-grant being claimed through Mr. Srinivas Rao on the premise that Lingappa and Munishamappa had executed sale deed in his favour in the year 1946 itself is a false claim as by then the said vendors were no more alive etc., and while subject land were subject matter of acquisition for the benefit of the Bangalore Development Authority, but had later come to be de-notified and after all these acquisition notification and withdrawal notification, it is only name of father of seventh respondent also figures etc., and therefore no need for this court to interfere with the impugned order etc.,. 6. It is a fact that once any party goes through the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in an appeal under section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the aggrieved person is required to approach a civil court for declaration of rights etc., and not to keep petitioning further either to the Deputy Commissioner or to this court. 7. It is a fact that once any party goes through the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in an appeal under section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the aggrieved person is required to approach a civil court for declaration of rights etc., and not to keep petitioning further either to the Deputy Commissioner or to this court. 7. It is not necessary for this court to pronounce upon the merits of the claims, but suffice to observe that it is open to the aggrieved person to approach civil court, seek for suitable declaration made good through right, title and interest to the subject land and work out elsewhere in accordance with law. 8. Without prejudice, these writ petitions are dismissed as one not warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of dismissal of the main writ petitions itself, Misc. W. 3212 of 2011 for interim order does not survive for consideration, hence dismissed.