Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is also one for questioning the legality of the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore North and Bangalore Additional North Taluk, Bangalore, purporting to be in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Though Mr. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate, seeks for some accommodation to enable the State Government to file their objections etc., particularly for indicating the position that the land in fact has already been acquired for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and therefore even if the order says for resumption of the land, that is not a possibility and for such reason, no interference is warranted, submission cannot be accepted as while the petitioner claims that he is still in possession, the question of possession cannot be examined by this court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and more so when even the Act contemplates a difference procedure and a different provision is available for such eventuality. 3. Therefore, the request for adjournment is declined and writ petition is taken up for disposal on merits. 4. The order is to be quashed only for the reason that the impugned order achieves much more than what is permitted under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Act, particularly, for resuming the land in favour of the Government for cancellation of the revenue entries as such resumption is not after following the procedure contemplated under the very enactment. 5. It is in this background, this court after noticing the conduct of the Special Deputy Commissioners had passed the following order on 31.5.2011: “DVSKJ: 31.5.2011 Special Deputy Commissioners are incorrigible lot. Whichever senior KAS Officer occupies this post, immediately becomes the most wavered, arbitrary, statutory functionary. 2. 5. It is in this background, this court after noticing the conduct of the Special Deputy Commissioners had passed the following order on 31.5.2011: “DVSKJ: 31.5.2011 Special Deputy Commissioners are incorrigible lot. Whichever senior KAS Officer occupies this post, immediately becomes the most wavered, arbitrary, statutory functionary. 2. Grievance of the present writ petitioner is that a most adverse order even to resume the land and to take it to the possession of the State Government passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner is even without following the due procedure and in a notice issued for taking action under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), foisting an order for resumption of land on the premise that the predecessors in title of the writ petitioner had really not been granted any land as claimed by the petitioner way back in the year 1961; that the revenue records do not support this claim and therefore the land was required to be resumed to the State by dispossessing the petitioner etc.,. 3. Submission of Sri. Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner is that while this order is, in fact, at variance with the revenue records, the entries in the revenue records had been mutated immediately after grant in favour of the original grantee and therefore in favour of his wife on his demise and later in favour of persons who purchased the land from the wife of the original grantee and the other subsequent purchasers with the petitioner claiming that he had purchased such a land an extent of six acres in Sy.No.1/P15 situated at Arebinnamangala Village, Jala Hibit, Bangalore North Additional Taluk, as per sale transaction dated 2.11.1989 purchased from one Veerabhadraiah who in turn had purchased from wife of the original grantee etc., and even when the revenue records had indicated such entries in the revenue records, the Special Deputy Commissioner has passed an order indicating a wrong or false position as a fact and it is therefore, the order is required to be quashed etc. 4. Sri. 4. Sri. Omkumar, learned AGA who had been directed to take notice and who had been favoured with advance copy of the writ petition, submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner has such powers in terms of Section 136(3) of the Act, particularly, when it is found original grant was a forged one and occupation of the land by third parties is an unauthorized occupation and the Special Deputy Commissioner had a duty to evict them and resume the land to the State. 5. While the Government land if it has been encroached can definitely be resumed to the State in accordance with law, such was neither the entries nor the proposed action, but an order foisted for resumption of the land in the guise of proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act, is definitely a misuse and abuse of the powers vested under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Act. 6. It has been noticed that irrespective of whichever officer occupies post of Special Deputy Commissioner, all have been passing only such orders and exceptions are rare and few and it is obvious that they are not keen on passing orders either in accordance with law or based on the available record, but for other considerations and for other reasons and with the Special Deputy Commissioners having acquired a reputation as corrupt revenue officials, and this perception being well spread and this court having come across such atrocious orders time and again, had even urged upon the State Government to abolish the post of the Special Deputy Commissioner and entrust the responsibilities to regular Deputy Commissioners, who it is submitted at the Bar are officers drawn from the Indian Administrative Service. 7. While that is a matter on the administrative side which should be addressed by the State Government, the matter is directed to be listed again on 1.6.2011 as it is submitted by Sri. Omkumar, learned AGA that Revenue Secretary, Government of Karnataka will be appearing in similar related matters on this day as per the order passed in another writ petition wherein the order passed by the very Special Deputy Commissioner has been questioned. 8. This writ petition is admitted by issue of rule. 9. Issue interim order staying the operation of the impugned order pending further orders. 10. It is open to the respondents to file counter, if any. 11. 8. This writ petition is admitted by issue of rule. 9. Issue interim order staying the operation of the impugned order pending further orders. 10. It is open to the respondents to file counter, if any. 11. However, list the matter on 1.6.2011 along with W.P.No.7021 of 2011. 12. Registry is directed to list all such matters which involve such cancellation of entries and resumption of the land in exercise of powers by the Special Deputy Commissioner purporting to be in exercise of their powers under Section 136(3) of the Act.” 6. Thereafter, all such matters had been clubbed i.e. the matter wherein the Special Deputy Commissioners have exercised powers under Section 136(3) of the Act for passing such orders. 7. On examining one such order, this court has allowed the writ petition by a detailed order dated 8.6.2011 passed in W.P.No.7021 of 2011. 8. Following the order passed in the said writ petition and for the same reasons, this writ petition is also allowed. Rule made absolute. 9. The order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the second respondent [copy at Annexure-L] is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari.