Judgment :- Property rights are not examined by the High Court in a petition either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. More so, when an order which is sought to be questioned before the High Court is only an order relating to certain revenue entries in respect of agricultural lands and does not necessarily affect property rights. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by a correction order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the Tahsildar. Magadi Taluk in Proceedings No.RRT/PADA/CR/03-04. directing that the entries in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.35 of 3 Shivanasandra Village, Thippasandra Hobli, Magadi Taluk, which perhaps had been earlier mutated in the name of one by name Giriyanna deleting the name of the Government and to show the name of erstwhile khatedar on the premise that the subject land had been forfeited to the State for non-payment of land revenue earlier [year and details not forthcoming in either the order dated 10.5.2011 at Annexure-A or original order dated 30.10.2010 which is corrected by subsequent order] and on the successor in interest of the erstwhile khatedar, writ petitioner who claimed to having paid the arrears of land revenue in a sum of Rs. 1,012/- and the fine for restoring the land in a sum of Rs. 1,012/- and the fine for restoring the land in a sum of Rs. 3,036/-, in all Rs.4,048/- having been remitted to the State account through a challan No.0073 dated 30.10.2010 at State Bank of Mysore, Magadi Branch and having produced the same, the Tahsildar in exercise of his powers under section 163(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short ‘the Act’] having ordered for restoration in favour of the original khatedar one Giriyanna in the entire extent of 7 acres 20 guntas including kharab of 9 guntas in this survey number and on the basis of request made in the year 2003-04 and renewed his request on 4.5.2010 and having remitted the amount mentioned above on 5.10.2010 while that order had been passed, subsequently on the representation made by the Education Officer of Magadi Taluk as per his letter dated 13.1.2011 apprising the Tahsildar that an extent of land measuring 90 ft X 177 ft had been handed over to the Government as per a gift deed executed by one Cheluvaiah son of Kalyanaiah on 10.11.2009 for the purpose of construction of Government High School and as the construction of the High School was in an advanced stage and therefore the Education Officer having requested the Tahsildar for granting lands as at the relevant time gift deed had not been registered and therefore to that extent the Tahsildar having directed the entries in the revenue records to be altered to indicate an extend of 6 acres 36 guntas of land in the name of the original khatedar and an extent of 15 guntas [90 ft X 177 ft] in the name of the Government High School. It is aggrieved by this correction effected to the earlier entry, the present writ petition by the person claiming to be grandson of original khatedar by name Giriyanna through his son Singraiah, contending that this action taken by the Tahsildar is to the utmost detriment of the petitioner’s interest; that it has been passed even without any notice to the writ petitioner; that it is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore per se is not sustainable in law and in this context has sought for the following reliefs: a) issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order No.RRT:PADA:CR:31/2003-04 dated 10.05.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent wide Annexure-A as passed without authority of law or bad in law. b) and issue such other and further relives this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. 3. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, Sri. Prabhugoud B Tumbigi, learned counsel has very vehemently urged that the order passed by the Tahsildar being one in violation of the principles of natural justice and to the detriment of the petitioner’s interest, it is necessary this court should exercise jurisdiction even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash this order and remand the matter to the Tahsildar for according a proper opportunity to the writ petitioner and to pass orders afresh etc…. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would justify not going before the appellate authority in the appeal remedy available under section 49 of the Act as the order passed by the Tahsildar is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Mr. Sathyanarayana Singh, learned Government Pleader who has been directed to take notice for statutory respondents, on looking into the writ petition papers and particularly the order passed by the Tahsildar [copy at Annexure-A] submits that on 10.11.2009 the subject land was a Government land and if at that time, looking into the background that it was a land which had been forfeited to Government, had executed a gift deed though not registered, executed by some person claiming to otherwise having interest in the land, donating an extent of 15 guntas in this survey number in favour of the Government for construction of a Government High School and the Government having sanctioned a sum of Rs. 43.33 lakhs for construction of Government High School and construction of the school building being at an advanced stage, as interest of the Government and also the larger public interest which can ensure that Government High School comes up for the benefit of the villagers should be sustained and that it should not suffer because of other litigation and if the Tahsildar under the impugned order at Annexure-A made necessary corrections to the earlier order, there is nothing wrong with the same; that it only sub-serves larger public interest and therefore there is no need for this court to interfere in writ jurisdiction, more so, when the appellate remedies are available to the writ petitioner and therefore writ petition is to be dismissed. 6. Petitioner is a person who claims to be a legal heir of one Singraiah and one Giriyanna said to have been grandfather of the writ petitioner. The subject land though, it is claimed had been purchased by said Giriyanna in the year 1945, no particulars as to when it became pada, as to when it had been forfeited and how long it remained like that are not forthcoming. 7. Even as per order dated 30.10.2011 passed by the Tahsildar for restoring the land to the original khatedar who is no more alive, at the instance of a person claiming to be his legal heir, the Tahsildar has not indicated as to when the land was forfeited in favour of the Government and what steps had been taken or had not been taken to retain the land in same status till the year 2011. In terms of the provisions of section 163(1) of the Act, when once land is forfeited for non-payment of land revenue by any land owner, it vests in the State and revenue entries will be accordingly mutated in the name of the Government and as pada. While there is scope for the original land owner/khatedar to seek restoration on clearing the arrears and on payment of fine in terms of the provisions of section 163(2) of the Act, it can happen only if the subject land had not been in the meanwhile sold in public auction and if third party interest had not been created. 8. While there is scope for the original land owner/khatedar to seek restoration on clearing the arrears and on payment of fine in terms of the provisions of section 163(2) of the Act, it can happen only if the subject land had not been in the meanwhile sold in public auction and if third party interest had not been created. 8. Unfortunately, the order of the Tahsildar is totally silent about any such development, as to whether the land was so available or had been sold in any public auction earlier, but simply quotes statutory provision and that the person claiming to be a successor in interest of the original khatedar having remitted arrears of land revenue and having paid fine, it is being restored in favour of the original khatedar Giriyanna who is no more alive! 9. The Tahsildar has also not cared to look into the developments in between, particularly, part of that land having been given for construction of a Government High School and the building actually having come up. A look at the order at Annexure-G which is the corrected version of the impugned order at Annexure-A only shows that there is something radically wrong in the Tahsildar passing this order and without noticing developments in between and exudes a smell that there is something fishy about the order. No doubt, the Tahsildar purports to pass order in exercise of statutory power under section 163(2) of the Act and on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector, but that in itself is not the end. On the other hand, power for either forfeiture or for cancellation of the forfeiture under section 163 of the Act reading as under: “163. On the other hand, power for either forfeiture or for cancellation of the forfeiture under section 163 of the Act reading as under: “163. Forfeiture of occupancy or alienated holding: (1) The Tahsildar may declare the occupancy or alienated holding in respect of which an arrear of land revenue is due, to be forfeited to the State Government, and sell or otherwise dispose of the same under the provisions of sections 87 and 88 and credit the proceeds, if any to the defaulter’s account: Provided that the Tahsildar shall not declare any such occupancy or alienated holding to be forfeited, - (a) unless previously thereto he shall have issued a proclamation and written notices of the intended declaration in the manner prescribed under section 168 for effecting sales of immovable property; and (b) until after the expiration of at least fifteen days from the latest date on which any of the said notices shall have been published as prescribed under section 168. Provided further that not-withstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 87, the Tahsildar shall not declare, any such occupancy or alienated holding, to be forfeited to the State Government, where the arrears of land revenue due, does not exceed rupees ten thousand. (2) When any occupancy or alienated holding is declared forfeited under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar may, before such occupancy or alienated holding is sold or otherwise disposed of, cancel the declaration of forfeiture, if the defaulter or any person interested in the occupancy or alienated holding pays the entire arrears of land revenue due and all expenses incurred so far in the recovery proceedings as may be fixed by the Tahsildar.” and as of now, in terms of the second proviso to section 163(1) of the Act, the Government land will not be forfeited as pada until and unless arrears of land revenue exceeds a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and this is the position of law ever since the year 1991 and if so the forfeiture obviously must have been much earlier as the land had been forfeited for as small an amount of land revenue as Rs. 1,012/-. 10. 10,000/- and this is the position of law ever since the year 1991 and if so the forfeiture obviously must have been much earlier as the land had been forfeited for as small an amount of land revenue as Rs. 1,012/-. 10. As to whether the land was still available, as to who was in possession and cultivation and as to what interest who had after the land became Government land in terms of the forfeiture are all not matters forthcoming in the order of the Tahsildar nor can be examined by this court in writ jurisdiction. It is not necessary to go into the question of correctness or otherwise of the order at Annexure-A in writ jurisdiction though Sri. Prabhugoud, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urges that the land though had been forfeited for non payment of land revenue, petitioner and his ancestore had continued to remain in possession of the subject land etc., Such assertions are all fit matters to be made before the civil court in a property laid suit impleading necessary parties and not of much value or use before a writ court. 11. The order passed by the Tahsildar on 30.10.2010 does not appear to be a satisfactory order nor is there any need for interference by this court in respect of correction effected to this order on 10.5.2011 as per Annexure-A. 12. There is absolutely no need to examine this writ petition which has been filed in the High Court even without going through the statutory remedy, which was otherwise available to the writ petitioner. Bonafides of the petitioner is not very definite and persons without bonafides, persons without genuine grievances or causes have made it an habit of making use of the process of writ jurisdiction to get order which are otherwise not possible in law and to flex muscle elsewhere using the order passed by the High Court to the detriment of third parties who become innocent victims! 13. 13. There is absolutely no need for examining any cause by this court in this writ petition, which is more frivolous in nature and even the bonafide of the petitioner is doubtful as this court cannot ascertain or conclude one way or the other as to whether the writ petitioner is genuinely the legal heir of the erstwhile khatedar and as claimed in the writ petition, grandson of Giriyanna and also if no other developments had taken place in between. 14. It is therefore while this writ petition is dismissed levying cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner payable in favour of the third respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of the District is directed to hold an enquiry in respect of the circumstances under which the Tahsildar has caused the order under Annexure-G and to submit a report in this regard to the third respondent – Secretary, Education Department, Government of Karnataka for follow up action at his end if need be, for which permission is reserved under this order. 15. Cost to be deposited within four weeks from today and the registry is directed to issue cheque in favour of the Secretary, Education Department, which amount can be utilized for the education purpose of the department. 16. If cost is not deposited, registry to issue a certificate in favour of the third respondent, for realizing the amount as though it is a decree of a civil court.