Judgment : 1. The revenue authorities are notorious for their wavered, arbitrary exercise of statutory powers, particularly, while acting under the provisions of Sections 127 to 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. These provisions deal with the changes of entries rather change of names in the record of rights and other related records of the revenue department which is essentially to identify the person from whom the land revenue is to be collected which is a tax levied on agricultural and on the owner of possessor, occupant of the land and for such purpose an account in the name of the person is maintained by the revenue authorities and by assessing the quantum of revenue to be collected depending on the nature of the lands and at the rate of per acre etc. 3. Revenue entries get changed as and when ownership in the subject land changes as the revenue authorities should know who is current owner of the land from whom such tax can be collected. 4. The entries in the revenue record while may be one piece of evidence to show that perhaps the persons in whose name the revenue records stand and from whom tax is to be collected is the owner of such land, it is not necessarily the precise or an undisputed position and is only a rebuttable presumption. 5. 4. The entries in the revenue record while may be one piece of evidence to show that perhaps the persons in whose name the revenue records stand and from whom tax is to be collected is the owner of such land, it is not necessarily the precise or an undisputed position and is only a rebuttable presumption. 5. What with the reputation and the manner of conduct of the revenue authorities of late having become rather dismal and with revenue authorities more often than not acting on consideration other than the statutory provisions for effecting such changes in the revenue records as unfortunately gullible, innocent, ignorant people believe that getting entry of their name in the revenue records fetches them title or ownership to the subject land and compete with one another for eliciting favourable order from the revenue authority starting from the Tahsildar who acts on the report to be submitted by the Revenue Inspector or Village Accountant and the higher revenue officials, namely, the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner who exercise such statutory powers and as though this is not sufficient, the State Government having appointed a good number of Special Deputy Commissioners who have specialized in acting in most wavered, arbitrary and even corrupt manner which this Court can take judicial notice of as good number of orders passed by such Special Deputy Commissioners are brought before this Court day in and day out by aggrieved persons who complain that when they sought for change of revenue entries, the Special Deputy Commissioners have ventured upon depriving persons even the land itself and directing the lower revenue authorities to dispossess the persons of such land and take possession and put some one else in their place etc. 6. Though this Court has passed orders time and again noticing wavered, arbitrary and even atrocious conduct on the part of the revenue authorities, there appears to be no let up for such actions on the part of the higher officials and impression gathers gain that sub officers are even protected by the higher officials and the State Government rather than being disciplined and being dealt with in accordance with law. 7. Correctness or otherwise of an entry made in the revenue record is not a matter worthy of examination by the High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Correctness or otherwise of an entry made in the revenue record is not a matter worthy of examination by the High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But, when the revenue authorities with such ill reputation and notoriety indulge in passing orders which are far away from statutory provisions which have no semblance of adherence to the statutory requirements and when the power vested in the statutory authorities is abused or misused rather than being used for a proper purpose, it becomes inevitable for this Court to examine such matters even in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, not because this Court has to sit in appeal over such orders and to correct the mistake or error if any in the order but to ensure that rule of law prevails in this country and that statutory functionaries act in law conforming manner and do not go berserk to the detriment and hardship of citizens. 8. 8. Submission of Sri T.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition, is that the petition also involves such a question relating to correctness of entries in the revenue records, as to whether it should be in the name of writ petitioner who claims to have purchased an extent of 20 acres 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.11 of Bommalapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Heggadevanakote Taluk, Mysore District as per the sale deed dated 30-5-2007 executed by one Puthan Veettil Valsan Menon said to be holding or said to be agent of one Vayal Veettil Sreedharan who it is claimed is owner of the land and authorised to act on his behalf as per power of attorney dated 23-3-2004, it appears is aggrieved because the power of attorney holder after executing sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioner had whether he declared independence on behalf of his principal is not clear from the writ petition averments, had embarked on executing two more sale deeds of the even dates dated 17-9-2007 in favour of one P.S. Balashankar, son of P. Shivanna in respect of extent of 10 acres and another extent of 10 acres 26 guntas in the very survey number in favour of one Patel Rajegowda and it is in this background it appears disputes have arisen between the writ petitioner and the person executing the sale deed, namely, Puthan Veettil Valsan Menon-fourth respondent herein and other two purchasers figuring as respondents 5 and 6 and in that context the matter has reached this Court via the route of the Tahsildar in the first instance, Assistant Commissioner purporting to exercise his appellate jurisdiction under Section 136(2) of the Act and later the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, whose revisional jurisdiction is said to have been invoked by the respondents 5 and 6 who have passed orders as at Annexure-E, F and H respectively; that the writ petitioner is highly aggrieved by the order dated 10-5-2011 (copy of Annexure-H), passed by the Deputy Commissioner acting at the behest of respondents 5 and 6. The Deputy Commissioner has under the impugned order set aside the earlier order that had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner in favour of the writ petitioner as the Assistant Commissioner had allowed the appeal of the writ petitioner in R.A. No.66 of 2009-10 and had directed revenue entries to be mutated in the name of the writ petitioner based on the sale deed dated 30-5-2007 and had also directed cancellation of the entries in terms of No.RRT.52/2007-08, dated 20-2-2009 by setting aside that order. 9. Mr. Raghupathy submits that the Deputy Commissioner has acted in a very arbitrary, whimsical way and in a manner of usurping jurisdiction of the Civil Court, by going into the validity or otherwise of the sale deeds and also opining as an handwriting expert expressing doubt about the genuineness of the signature of the owner on the authorization instrument and therefore the order is to be quashed and the following reliefs granted to the writ petitioner: “(i) Declare that the order passed by the Tahsildar, H.D. Kote Taluk dated 20-2-2009 in No. RRT:PRAKARNA SAN.52/2007-08 produced at Annexure-E is illegal and quash the same; (ii) Declare that the order dated 10-5-2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore in Revision No.109/2010-11 produced at Annexure-H is illegal and quash the same; (iii) Allow this writ petition with costs; and (iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case”. 10. In this context further submission of Sri T.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel is that particular Deputy Commissioner who has passed the impugned order is notorious for his wavered and arbitrary acts; that the order at Annexure-H is testimony for this submission; that the Deputy Commissioner could not have opined on the genuineness or otherwise of the power of attorney executed by the owner of the land, namely, Vayal Veettil Sreedharan for opining that it was doubtful as to whether writ petitioner had got title or otherwise to the land as the signature of the owner in the power of attorney appears to be not genuine; that the particular officer is now transferred in view of innumerable complaints received against him at the office of the Chief Minister etc., and apart from that the order is not sustainable in law etc. 11. 11. The High Court does not confer any title to any landowner nor takes away any one’s title. Matter which are fit to be taken up before the Civil Court and agitated there for establishing ownership rights are instead brought before the High Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the pretext of correctness or otherwise of the entries made in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner or respondents. 12. As observed in the earlier part of this order, such questions are not worthy of examination by the High Court, particularly, as to whether A’s name or B’s name is entered, and why not the names of Y or Z instead, which are not matters of grave concern or of utmost importance, as the competition amongst AB and YZ appears to be only to get their names entered in the revenue register which, in fact, is a liability as the person has to pay land revenue! Be that as it may, when the dispute is basically one relating to the title to the subject land and not a dispute which can be examined at all by the Revenue Authorities or by this Court in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, such writ petitions are more an abuse and misuse of the process of this Court and it is high time this Court discourages this tendency, particularly, when basic dispute is one relating to title and not merely entries made by revenue authorities or some wavered action on the part of the revenue officials. 13. Though in the present case, such is the submission of Sri T.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has acted in such a manner to the detriment of the writ petitioner, I am not enthused to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in favour of person who in the first instance is not sure what he is purchasing, from whom and in what manner. That is a problem created not by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner but arose the moment land was purchased by the writ petitioner, through an agent representing another person, who it is claimed was the owner of the subject land! 14. That is a problem created not by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner but arose the moment land was purchased by the writ petitioner, through an agent representing another person, who it is claimed was the owner of the subject land! 14. Even genuine purchasers being taken for a ride in the name of persons executing sale deeds as agents is another sharp practice that prevails in the society and unless persons buy property with their eyes open and with sufficient diligence and bona fides, they inevitably get into troubled and problems. 15. Therefore, writ petition is dismissed levying deterrent cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner. As no notice had been issued to the respondents, cost to be credited to the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee. 16. Cost to be deposited before the Registry within four weeks from today. If cost is not deposited, registry to issue a certificate in favour of the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee, for realizing the amount as though it is a decree of a Civil Court or arrears of land revenue.