Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is a typical example of the manner of functioning of revenue officials, particularly, higher revenue officials holding the rank of Special Deputy Commissioners as to how they go about their work and more so, when they are exercising their suo motu revisional jurisdiction for reviewing any proceedings relating to entries being made in the revenue records for changing the entry from the name of one person in favour of any other person who claims that interest in the subject land has passed on from the erstwhile person to latter one claiming or seeking for his name to be entered in the revenue records. Revenue entries by themselves do not necessarily confer title and on the other hand, they only reflect the right, title and interest a person may otherwise have or has otherwise acquired. Unfortunately, ignorant and misled citizens believe that getting the revenue entries mutated is the most important aspect for getting ownership or title to the property to agricultural lands and even attach more importance to the entries being mutated in their names in the revenue records with the revenue authorities, who are responsible for effecting such changes in the revenue records particularly, after following the procedure contemplated in terms of Sections 127 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short ‘the Act’) have either been filing appeals as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 136 or invoking revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act. 2. The relevant provisions viz, Sections 127, 128, 129,130, 133, 134, 135 and 136 of the Act reads as under:- “127. Record of Rights.- (1) A record of rights shall be prepared in the prescribed manner in respect of every village and such record shall include the following particulars:- (a) the names of persons who are holders, occupants, owners, mortgagees, landlords or tenants of the land or assignees of the rent or revenue thereof; (b) the nature and extent of the respective interest of such persons and the conditions or liabilities (if any) attaching thereto; (c) the rent of revenue (if any) payable by or to any of such persons; and (d) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (2) The record of rights shall be maintained by such officers in such areas as may be prescribed and different officers may be prescribed for different areas. (2) The record of rights shall be maintained by such officers in such areas as may be prescribed and different officers may be prescribed for different areas. Land Revenue [1964: KAR. ACT 12520 (3) When the preparation of the record of rights referred to in sub-section (1) is completed in respect of any village, the fact of such completion shall be notified in the official Gazette and in such manner as may be prescribed. 128. Acquisitions 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 acknowledgment 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: 1 [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.]1 1. Inserted by Act 14 of 1999 w.e.f. 30.4.1999. Explanation I. – The rights mentioned above include a mortgage without possession but do not include an easement or a charge not amounting to a mortgage of the kind specified in section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act No.4 of 1882). Explanation II.-A person in whose favour a mortgage is discharged or extinguished or a lease determined acquires a right within the meaning of this section. Explanation II.-A person in whose favour a mortgage is discharged or extinguished or a lease determined acquires a right within the meaning of this section. (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 acknowledgment of the receipt of such report to the person making it, and forward the report to the prescribed officer of the village concerned. 1964: KAR. ACT 12] Land Revenue 521 (3) If any person makes a report under sub-section (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-section (1) to the prescribed officer, or (ii) by the Revenue Officer, in case the report is made to such officer under sub-section (2). (4) No document by virtue of which any person acquires a right in any land as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant or assignee of the rent or revenue thereunder, shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 12 of 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 section 129; and on the registration of such a document, the registering authority shall make a report of the acquisition of the right to the prescribed officer. 129. Registration 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-section (1) of section 128 or received by him under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of the said section. 129. Registration 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-section (1) of section 128 or received by him under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of the said section. (2) Whenever a prescribed officer makes an 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) Should any objection to any entry made under sub-section (1) 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 of Disputed Cases. Land Revenue [1964: KAR. ACT 12 522 (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 Registers of Mutations to the Record of Rights shall be effected in the prescribed manner, provided that an entry in the Register of Mutations shall not be transferred to the Record of Rights until such entry has been duly certified. 130. (7) The transfer of entries from the Registers of Mutations to the Record of Rights shall be effected in the prescribed manner, provided that an entry in the Register of Mutations shall not be transferred to the Record of Rights until such entry has been duly certified. 130. Obligation to furnish information.-(1) Any person whose rights, interests or liabilities are required to be or have been entered in any record or register, under this Chapter shall be bound, on the requisition of any officer engaged in compiling or revising the record or register, to furnish or produce for his inspection within thirty days from the date of such requisition, all such information or documents needed for the correct compilation of revision thereof, as may be within his knowledge or in his possession or power. (2) An officer to whom any information is furnished or before whom any document is produced in accordance with a requisition under sub-section (1) shall at once give a written acknowledgment thereof to the person furnishing or producing the same 2[or may return the same immediately after keeping a copy of it, if necessary] and shall endorse on any such document a note under his signature, stating the fact of its production and the date thereof. 1. Inserted by Act 23 of 1982 w.e.f. 15.7.1982. (3) Any person who fails to furnish information or produce the document required by sub-section (1) within the period specified in the said sub-section shall be liable to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty-five rupees, as may be fixed by the 3[Thasildar] and the amount payable as penalty shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue: 1. Substituted by Act 5 of 1970 w.e.f. 23.10.1969. Provided that no penalty shall be imposed under this sub-section without giving to the person concerned a reasonable opportunity to be heard. 133. Presumption regarding entries in the records.-An entry in the Record of Rights and a certified entry in the Register of Mutations 1[or in the patta book] shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore. 1. Inserted by Act 23 of 1982 w.e.f. 15.7.1982. 134. Certified copies.- Applications for certified copies of entries in the Record of Rights or the Register of Mutations may be made to and such copies may be given by the prescribed officers. 135. 1. Inserted by Act 23 of 1982 w.e.f. 15.7.1982. 134. Certified copies.- Applications for certified copies of entries in the Record of Rights or the Register of Mutations may be made to and such copies may be given by the prescribed officers. 135. Bar of Suits: No suit shall lie against the State Government or any officer of the State Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register that is maintained under this Chapter or to have any such entry omitted or amended: Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in any record or register maintained under this Chapter, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877; and the entry in the record or register shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. 136. Appeal and Revision: (1) The provisions of Chapter V shall not apply to any decision or order under this Chapter. (2) Any person affected by an order made under sub-section (4) or an entry certified under sub-section (6) of section 129 may, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order or the knowledge of the entry certified, appeal to such officer as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf and his decision shall be final. (3) The Deputy Commissioner may, on his own motion or application of a party, call for an examine any records made under section 127 and section 129 and pass such orders as he may deem fit. Provided that no order shall be passed except after hearing the party who would be adversely affected by such order.” 3. A general impression has gained ground that even when a person who has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Asst. Provided that no order shall be passed except after hearing the party who would be adversely affected by such order.” 3. A general impression has gained ground that even when a person who has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Asst. Commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act has gone through that process, can nevertheless invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act, though in terms of the proviso to Section 135 of the Act, the further course of remedy for such persons who claim to have been affected by the appellate order passed by the Asst. Commissioner is only to approach the Civil Court and the Deputy Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over such orders as suo motu revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner can only be in respect of original proceedings that have taken place and as contemplated in Sections 127 and 129 of the Act as indicated in subsection (3) of Section 136 of the Act itself. 4. Land values raising phenomenally in and around urban places and paving way for unhealthy competition amongst citizens to acquire ownership or get into lands by any means legal, not so legal, even illegal and cost being quite high, grabbers of government land and even a private land have found it very convenient to manipulate the revenue officials who have powers under Section 136 of the Act and the original authority – the Tahsildar who has to exercise power and perform duty under Sections 127 and 129 of the Act as they find such revenue officials are amenable to all sorts of inducements. 5. Such revenue officials have become synonym for corruption and arbitrariness. This Court can even take judicial notice of rampant corruption that prevails in the governance/administration, particularly, so in the Revenue Department. In fact law violating Special Deputy Commissioners have cornered limelight in a prominent way of late but it does not necessarily mean that such Special Deputy Commissioners were functioning in a very proper manner earlier and did not have such traits earlier and have acquired notoriety only recently, but because of late the frequency of their indulging in arbitrary, whimsical and atrocious orders being passed, has only increased phenomenally and aggrieved citizens have been regularly bringing such matters to the notice of the High Court, invoking writ jurisdiction. 6. 6. Unfortunately, governance in our country whether the State Government or the Central Government is by and large inert to public causes and grievances. Governments are generally insensitive to the woes and travails of the people and continue to behave as though we are still ruled by a foreign power whose main purpose was to keep our people under subjugation for their benefit and had indulged in exploitation of resources in this country. 7. Though we have attained freedom in the year 1947 and became republic in the year 1950 and our constitution proclaims in the preamble as follows:- “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a [SOVERREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and to secure to all its citizens: JUSICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTYof thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; And to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the [unity and integrity of the Nation]; IN OUR CONSTITUTENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.” this purpose and object has by and large only remained in the constitution and not translated into action, because of either the letharginess of the governance or the careless attitude on the part of the governments. 8. Even today in our country majority of the population goes without basic needs. 9. This position only reflects very poorly on the governance in our country even after independence. This Court noticing that persons occupying the post of Special Deputy Commissioners in exercise of their powers under Section 136(3) of the Act have been indulging in passing highly arbitrary, whimsical orders and more often than based on other considerations but not on merits and with the government being oblivious to such developments, and whether it is by design or by accident filling up the post of Special Deputy Commissioners only by such persons, who have only specialised in arbitrary action and even of corruption, it had become necessary for this Court to take serious note of such developments in the administrations particularly, as more and more number of writ petitions are being filed before this Court wherein the challenge and relief sought for is against such orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioners invoking their revisional jurisdiction under section 136(3) of the Act 10. The revisional jurisdiction though is only meant for correcting the records relating to the entries particularly in the revenue records the Special Deputy Commissioners for reasons best known and it is not known as to the whether they are so mandated by the Government but have been of late systematically indulging in passing arbitrary orders on a very large scale in recent times as though it is a policy of the administrational 11. The Revenue Secretary, Government of Karnataka, had been asked to appear before this court to get himself acquainted first hand about such indulgences by the Special Deputy Commissioner and in passing orders beyond what is permitted under Section 136 of the Act to the detriment of complaining citizens and it is therefore it had become necessary for this court to direct the Revenue Secretary, Government of Karnataka, to be present in the Court Hall to get himself acquainted with such developments and for ensuring suitable remedial action taken at the administrative level of the Government. 12. The earlier orders passed by this court on different dates in this writ petition starting from 26.5.2011, 27.5.2011 and 1.6.2011 which read as under vividly brings into focus the background of the present case, particularly, the manner of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Special Deputy Commissioners. “DVSKJ: 26-05-2011 Issue rule. 2. Issue interim order of stay of the impugned order at Annexure-G dated 3.9.2010 pending further orders in this writ petition. 3. Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Impugned order is a classic example for most arbitrary, irrational manner of orders that are being passed by the Special Deputy Commissioners in exercise of their powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, most of whom are functioning within the vicinity of Bangalore Urban Agglomeration. Revenue proceedings are breeding places for rampant corruption particularly, by the manipulation of records relating to grant of government lands to all and sundry, including gomal lands reserved for pasteurization and that too without any rhyme and reason and successive superior revenue officials indulging in rampant cancellation spree of such land grant orders, including lands which might have been given to number of imposters who might have grabbed government lands for themselves but who might not have cultivated the land even once. The Special Deputy Commissioner do not seem to be making any distinction between such cases of fraud and deceit and genuine cultivators of land who perhaps might have been granted government lands for cultivation as landless agricultural labourers etc. Of late, the Special Deputy Commissioners in Bangalore District, have been holding a festival of cancellation of grants resulting in all sorts of misery and hardship to people, particularly, the genuine cultivators. 5. While one Special Deputy Commissioner is reputed to act in a most arbitrary manner and carries the reputation of being a most corrupt official, his successors do not appear to be any better and the explanation offered to this phenomenon by Sri R Omkumar, learned AGA is to be accepted, it is because the Special Deputy Commissioner’s post is offered to those persons who join Karnataka Administrative Service and there is only one promotional provision to such persons during their service time and therefore, are patronized with such posts, as otherwise a KAS officer is not normally posted as a regular Deputy Commissioner of a District, which is filled up by officers in the IAS cadre. 6. Be that as it may, the post of Special Deputy Commissioner has now become synonym for corruption, nepotism and arbitrariness of which fact this court can take judicial notice and it is high time a governance worth its name having some semblance of commitment to maintenance of rule of law looks into such anarchic exercise of power by these special Deputy Commissioners and takes corrective measures, instead of driving each and every affected person to seek for relief in writ jurisdiction before the High Court. 7. Such matters come before this Court, day in and day out and this does not auger well for any administration and only gives an impression to this Court that there is no governance at all in this State, leave alone good governance, a very sorry state of affairs. 8. It is therefore, that the Revenue Secretary is directed to be present before this Court on 27.05.2011, so that he can familiarize himself with these facts and such unfortunate development in the administration and can be impressed upon first land to take suitable corrective measures! 9. Counter if any to the writ petition to be filed within two weeks time by the respondents. 10. 9. Counter if any to the writ petition to be filed within two weeks time by the respondents. 10. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, as well as the Principal Revenue Secretary, Government of Karnataka. Copy of this order also to be furnished to Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA. List on 27.05.2011 DVSKJ: 27-05-2011 Smt. Geetha Ramesh, Joint Secretary, Revenue Department, is present before the Court in the place of Revenue Secretary Sri. Prabhakara K.S, and it is stated that the secretary has gone abroad, in connection with some training programme. 2. Order passed on 26.05.2011 while admitting this writ petition has given reasons for requesting the presence of the Revenue Secretary before the Court. 3. However, Smt. Geetha Ramesh, has been fully apprised about the manner of functioning of the Special Deputy Commissioners. It is high time the post of Special Deputy Commissioner is abolished, if the functioning in the Revenue Department is to have some semblance of adherence to the rule of law and is to function in a transparent and efficient manner. 4. It is submitted by Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA that to examine the conduct of one Special Deputy Commissioner by name Sri H. Ramanjaneya, orders passed by this Special Deputy Commissioner are referred to a Committee that has been set up to review the orders passed by the particular Special Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The manner of functioning by the Special Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under section 136(3) by the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, will be come obvious by a mere look at the impugned order, in the present writ petition! 5. It is for this reason the post of Special Deputy Commissioners is required to be abolished and alternative arrangements made, to attend to matters which had been allocated to the exclusive domain of such Special Deputy Commissioners. 6. State Government to respond to this possibility and also place before the Court the outcome of the proceedings by the Review Committee. It should also place before this Court the action that has been initiated against such erring Special Deputy Commissioners and as to what is the status as of now. 7. 6. State Government to respond to this possibility and also place before the Court the outcome of the proceedings by the Review Committee. It should also place before this Court the action that has been initiated against such erring Special Deputy Commissioners and as to what is the status as of now. 7. Smt. Geetha Ramesh, Joint Secretary, Revenue Department, states that the Revenue Secretary will be returning to Bangalore by Monday the 30th May 2011. 8. List the matter for further orders on 1.6.2011 so that the Revenue Secretary can be present before the court and report on the developments that has taken place so far and for eliciting the response of the Revenue Secretary as well as the Joint Secretary who is present before the court today. Both may be present before the Court on 1.6.2011. 9. Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the to the learned AGA as also to forward a copy direct to the Revenue Secretary and Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka “DVSKJ: 1.6.2011 Mr. Prabhakar, Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka is present before the court and states that the Government is aware of certain administrative lapses on the part of the officials occupying the post of Special Deputy Commissioner and in respect of one particular Deputy Commissioner some action has already been initiated by issue of show cause notice etc., 2. One swallow does not make a summer. What is noticed by this court is all officers of KAS ranking occupying the post of Special Deputy Commissioner have been acting in most erratic, whimsical manner, particularly, in exercise of jurisdiction under section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short ‘the Act’]. This is a provision for exercising revisional jurisdiction only in respect of entries in the revenue records and not for other purposes. It is impressed upon the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka, to issue commensurate instructions to all revenue officials in the State, particularly, those who exercise suo motu revisional powers under section 136(3) of the Act to confine their action within the scope of the law and not to embark on other possibilities which are provided under the Act under other statutory provisions. 3. 3. A notice issued for taking action under one statutory provision and for one purpose cannot be made use of for a different action under different statutory provision though may be justified for such action under that statutory provision. 4. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka, to place before the court on an affidavit, steps that have been taken hitherto and what further action the State proposes to take, particularly for examining the possibility of abolishing the post of Special Deputy Commissioners and to make an alternative arrangement for the same. List on 8.6.2011 for such compliance.” 13. It is in response to such orders, Mr. Prabhakar, Revenue Secretary, Government of Karnataka, who was present before the court on 1.6.2011 has placed before the court the affidavit sworn to by him today, reading as under: “I, K.S. Prabhakara, I.A.S., S/o Siddachar Kundur, aged about 57 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: I was directed by the Hon’ble High Court, to appear before it, vide its Order dated 27.05.2011 in W.P.No.7021/2011 and I was present on 01.06.2011. That the Government has taken serious view of the matter relating to disposal of cases by the Special Deputy Commissioners in the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In fact, the office of the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore was asked to review the orders passed by the then Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sri H. Ramanjaneya, and the office of the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore in turn examined all the orders in detail and has given a report, stating that the orders passed in 428 cases are wrong. That, based on the report, it has been decided to challenge those orders by filing writ petitions and nine (9) Special Government Advocates have been appointed and they are being entrusted with concerned files for preparing the writ petitions. That the Government has taken note of the serious lapses committed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioners, which have been pointed out by the office of the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore. That, the Government has taken note of the serious lapses committed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioners, as observed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.7021/2011 and also, the observations made in the report of the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore and now it has been decided to train all the Spl. That, the Government has taken note of the serious lapses committed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioners, as observed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.7021/2011 and also, the observations made in the report of the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore and now it has been decided to train all the Spl. Deputy Commissioners in respect of the procedures to be followed in disposal of the proceedings initiated under Sec.136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. That action is being taken by the Regional Commissioners to review periodically the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioners/ Deputy Commissioners issued under Section 136(3) of the Act. That, all the Spl. Deputy Commissioners have been directed to take note of the serious observations made by the Hon’ble High Court and they have been asked to be careful and vigilant hereafter and to scrupulously follow the procedures before disposing of the proceedings initiated under Sec.136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. That, the Government has already issued show cause notice to Sri Mallaiah, who is working as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, in the light of serious observations made by the Hon’ble High Court, vide Order/letter No. RD/105/LGP/2011 dated 31.05.2011, issued by the Government. That, action is being taken to transfer Sri Mallaiah, presently holding the post of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban district. That, the Government is also contemplating to propose an amendment to the Land Revenue Act, providing for appeal to the Regional Commissioner, against the orders passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioners/ Deputy Commissioners, under Section 136 (3). I do hereby declare that this is my name and signature and the contents of this affidavit are true and correct.” 14. While this affidavit does indicate there are some lukewarm efforts taken at the Government level, it is only typical of the manner of functioning in the governance prevalent in this country, wherein the inevitable trite is to show cosmetic changes or improvements sought to be brought about by indicating that some steps have already been taken! or for referring it to a committee, but ultimately not resulting in any concrete corrective measures. 15. or for referring it to a committee, but ultimately not resulting in any concrete corrective measures. 15. Unfortunately, such is the state of governance in this country and the bureaucratic controlled, politically led governance which are supposed to be comprising of representatives of the people in the Council of Ministers seldom bring about changes for a proper corrective measure but by and large status quo is maintained. 16. The cause for any malfunctioning in the Government is never addressed to but only a superficial examination at the surface level takes place only to get over or tide over a crisis but not for any long lasting remedial solution. 17. It is high time that the Government applies itself as to whether the very power under section 136(3) of the Act has been useful, is very necessary and is inevitable to be found on the statute book and if not whether the very provision can be omitted from the enactment. 18. Even as per the affidavit of the Revenue Secretary, Government of Karnataka, on the examination of the orders passed by one Special Deputy Commissioner – Revenue, namely, Sri. H. Ramanjaneya, it has been found there are not less than 428 cases of the officer indulging in excesses and passing wrong or incorrect orders purporting to exercise his jurisdiction under section 136(3) of the Act. 19. While suitable corrective measures, even disciplinary proceedings can be taken at the level of the Government against erring officials if they are found to be guilty of any misconduct and indulging in acts frowned upon by the terms of their appointments and rules and regulations governing their service conditions, insofar as the present order is concerned, on an examination of the order, even on the touchstone of writ jurisdiction in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order is one which is an arbitrary order, a clear instance of colorable exercise of power by the authority, as the authority purporting to exercise his revisional jurisdiction for effecting correction of entries in the revenue records has gone much beyond to direct the Tahsildar by ordering resumption of the land, in the guise of correcting the revenue entries. 20. 20. While correcting the entry in the revenue record if it is so warranted and if an entry is brought about in an illegal or deceptive manner it is the duty of the Deputy Commissioner in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it does not mean in the guise of exercising this power, he can embark on passing orders for resumption of land found in possession of third persons, even assuming for arguments sake that they are in illegal or unauthorized possession, without following the due procedure contemplated in the very enactment for such purpose. 21. While it is the bounden duty of the revenue authorities to ensure that the Government lands which are in occupation of unauthorized persons and ancroachers etc., has to be resumed to the State, it can be done only after following proper procedure as contemplated. It is only because the Deputy Commissioner has not followed the procedure for resuming the land and not after issuing proper notice for such action, the order becomes bad as is the case in the case of many such orders passed by the very officer. 22. It is to be incidentally noticed that Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that insofar as the question relating to exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner under section 136(3) of the Act in concerned it is available even in respect of orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction under section 136(2) of the Act, and therefore the observation that the Deputy Commissioner may not have power or jurisdiction to revise the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of appellate power is not correct, particularly, in the wake of the Judgment of a single Bench of this court in the case of ‘B MAHADEVAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA’ reported in 2006 [5] AIR KAR R 69 following the earlier division Bench Judgment which in turn purports to follow the full Bench decision of this court in the case of ‘GURURAJ GURUNATH GOVIND RAO MUTALIK DESAI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA’ reported in AIR 1995 KAR 267 . 23. 23. It is not necessary to examine this question as it is not really in issue in this particular writ petition, more so when the learned Additional Government Advocate has fairly submitted that in the present case, the impugned order dated 3.9.2010 passed by the special Deputy Commissioner [Annexure-G to the writ petition] is not sustainable even otherwise, being patently an order going beyond what had been proposed as per notice for action under section 136(3) of the Act. 24. However, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the matter may not be allowed to be concluded as liberty should be reserved to the respondent – Government to take action as is warranted in law after following proper procedure. 25. It is hereby made clear that this court neither confers jurisdiction on any person nor takes away jurisdiction, neither grants liberty for anyone nor takes away anybody’s liberty. In fact, citizens approach this court complaining that their rights have been trampled, their liberty is taken away and therefore there is need for interference by the court. 26. On an over all examination of the impugned order and as it is found it is one going beyond the proposal, that too for taking adverse action against the petitioner, the order dated 3.9.2010 deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. 27. However, it is made clear that any action as is permitted in law and as is warranted on a particular fact situation can be taken by the competent authority in accordance with law after following due procedure. There is never any impediment on a statutory authority for doing so nor this court places any embargo on such proper action that can be taken by the proper authority in respect of situation where it is so warranted. This writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.