Judgment :- 1. Yet another batch of writ petitions before this court questioning the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in terms of the order dated 10.6.2010 [copy at Annexure-A in both the petitions] where under the Special Deputy Commissioner, purporting to exercise his revisional jurisdiction available under section 136[3] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short ‘the Act’] has brought into existence the impugned order. 2. The distinguishing feature in the present order though a large number of such orders are brought before this court for examination within the scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is that [a] it is an order passed by the very authority in the third round of the exercise of power under this provision of law [b] it is an order which is reasonably elaborate running to as many as 35 pages and though a good number of such orders have been found fault with by this court and even quashed and many such orders have been virtually conceded by the State Government as they only deserve to be quashed, a spirited defence by the State Government in these petitions and Sri. Krishna Murthy, learned Special Government Advocate has appeared on behalf of the first respondent-State and other statutory authorities and the fifteenth respondent in both the petitions-Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited which is said to be a State owned Corporation brought into existence for identifying the Government lands which are under encroachment, to remove the encroachment, to take it to the possession of the State Government and fence all the lands and to preserve and conserve the land as submitted by Sri. Krishna Murthy, learned Special Government Advocate. 3. Krishna Murthy, learned Special Government Advocate. 3. Another significant deviation from such routine writ petitions is that there are other public authorities added as respondents to these writ petitions such as the fourth respondent-Bangalore Development Authority, fifth respondent-Inspector General of Police and Director, Department of Fire & Emergency Services and respondents 6 to 14 who claim that they are allottees of residential sites in the subject land, namely, Sy.No.211 in K.G. Banasawadi Village, presently Bangalore East Taluk, said to have been sites allotted in their favour by the fourth respondent-Bangalore Development Authority and who claimed that it had happened quite some time back in the year 1989 and the latest being in favour of the fifth respondent-Inspector General of Police and Director, Department of Fire & Emergency Services in the year 1999 and all claiming that they are in possession and also have put up construction and are making use of the subject site for their use and therefore urging that their interest should not be in any way jeopardized in the cross fire between the writ petitioners and the State and revenue officials acting on behalf of the State under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 4. 4. Yet another distinguishing feature is that the subject land measuring an extent of 42 acres 38 guntas [also described in some places as 47 acres 38 guntas and as is the understanding and impression of the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority] is a tank bed area in K.G. Banasawadi Village and therefore the specific stand of the State Government is that such a land could not have been subject matter of a re-grant order under section 5 of the Mysore [Personal and Miscellaneous] Inams Abolition Act, 1954 [for short ‘Inams Act’] and as claimed by the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions in respect of an extent of 9 acres of land each in this very survey number and also forms the basis for the action taken by the Special Deputy Commissioner to exercise his powers under section 136[3] of the Act to bring about certain changes in the revenue records to show the name of the Government as khatedar/Anubhavdar of the subject land which writ petitioners or their predecessors in title on the other hand claim had been re-granted to them by orders both dated 11.4.1966 [copy at Annexure-G in WP No.20213 of 2010 and at Annexure-F in WP No.20263 of 2010] by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolitions and based on which it appears the writ petitioners had got their names mutated in the revenue records in the year 1972-73 or thereabout and also claiming that the entries remained so up to the year 1992. 5. Petitioners have questioned legality of the order, operative portion of which reads as under: “In the instant case, by mere appearance of the signatures of ‘Shri P. Rajasekharappa’, the then Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition and of ‘Shri H. Kariyappa’, Special Tahsildar for Inams Abolition and subsequently Gazetted Assistant to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition are found to be got genuine. However, with view to have a specific opinion about the ‘disputed’ signatures of the said Officers, the opinion of the Forensic Laboratory/Handwriting Expert was obtained, particularly in view of the fact that the right and over the Government land was claimed by the Respondents-1 and 2(a) to (e) herein. In such a circumstance, it cannot by said that the action of the then Special Deputy Commissioner was unilateral. In such a circumstance, it cannot by said that the action of the then Special Deputy Commissioner was unilateral. Hence, the Contentions putforth on behalf of the Respondents-1 and 2(a) to (e) in this regard cannot be accepted. In fact, as pointed out by the Respondent-15-Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Ltd., the Respondents-1 and 2(a) to (e) are liable for action under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 since they have got created forged documents to grab the Government land particularly classified as ‘Tank’. In these circumstances, the claims of the Respondent-1 in respect of 09-00 acres, of land in S.No.211 of Banasawadi Village, as well as the claim of the Respondents-2(a) to (e) in respect of 8.00 Acres, in S.No.211 of Banasawadi Village, by virtue of the bogus, created and forged Orders dated 11.4.1966 in case Nos. INA PR 340/60-61 and No. INA PR 341/60-61 of the erstwhile Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition cannot be accepted. Further, the entries made in the revenue records by virtue of the said orders are liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, it is ordered. The Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore is directed to take necessary action to round off the names of the Respondent-1 and 2(a) to (e) wherever they occur in the revenue records such as RTCs etc., and enter as ‘Government-Tank’. Further, the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore is also directed to take necessary action to evict the Respondent-1 and 2(a) to (e) if they are in possession of land in question or any part thereof, in accordance with law and rules. The Tahsildar is further directed to initiate action against the Respondents-1 and 2(a) to (e) under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for having got created the forged documents to grab the Government land particularly classified as ‘Tank’. The Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore shall report compliance expeditiously. Now, in so far as the grievance of the Respondents 3 to 14 in respect of the land in S.No.211 of Banasawadi Village is concerned, this Authority is of the opinion that they have to agitate the same before the competent forum/Authority for appropriate relief in the matter. With the above observations and directions the matter is disposed of. Endorse the parties. With the above observations and directions the matter is disposed of. Endorse the parties. Order pronounced in open court on this the 10th day of June 2010.” claiming that order is not sustainable in law; that it is not in conformity with the provisions of section 136[3] of the Act; that the Special Deputy Commissioner has not given a proper opportunity to the writ petitioners either as to the proposed action or the basis for such action, particularly for annulling the earlier order that had been passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Inams Act in their favour; that in the guise of effecting certain corrections to the revenue records, the Special Deputy Commissioner has virtually set aside, annulled the re-grant order and the petitioners though have deprived of the land itself and not merely entries; that the action goes beyond the scope of the powers conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under section 136[3] of the Act and the Deputy Commissioner having not shown any deference to the two remand orders passed by this court earlier in respect of like orders, as per orders passed in WP No.22309 of 1997 connected with WP No.22310 of 1997 dated 4.3.1999 [copy at Annexure-R in WP No.20213 of 2010] and order dated 4.9.2003 passed in WP No.34060 of 2002 connected in WP No.34489 of 2002 [copy at Annexure-V in WP No.20213 of 2010]; that the present orders suffer from like defects; that the orders are to be quashed and consequential directions issued to the respondents. 6. A detailed counter/statement of objections has been filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 3 & 15-State and statutory authorities and many other private respondents such as respondents 4, 7 & 8, 10 & 11 have also filed their statement of objections. 7. One another ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the order though is a lengthy one, it is not a speaking order, in the sense, order does not advert to the relevant objections raised by the petitioners and has also not shown awareness to the arguments addressed by the writ petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner. 8. I have heard in great detail Smt. Vijayalakshmi Vishu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.20213 of 2010, Sri. Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior counsel and Sri. 8. I have heard in great detail Smt. Vijayalakshmi Vishu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.20213 of 2010, Sri. Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior counsel and Sri. S.S. Guttal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.20263 of 2010, Sri. Krishna Murthy, learned Special Government Advocate appearing for statutory respondents, Sri. A.M. Vijay, learned counsel for fourth respondent, Sri. K.M. Prakash, learned counsel for respondents 7 & 8, Sri. N. Devahdass, learned senior counsel appearing for ninth respondent, Sri. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for respondents 10 & 12. 9. A matter which should not have consumed about three minutes time of this court has prolonged for three days and has occupied time and space of this court though was not very necessary. 10. As observed in the earlier part of this order, the State Government having evinced very special interest to defend the matter, particularly, on the premise that the State Government is now being monitored by the Supreme Court for the purpose of conserving lakes, water bodies and also forest land and having come to the adverse notice of the Supreme Court in having been either lethargic or tardy in protecting such community beneficial lands and forests and the Supreme Court monitoring the manner of performance of the State Government, particularly, the steps taken not only for conserving water bodies and forest areas, but also seeking report of the State Government to apprise the Supreme Court as to follow up action for recovering such areas, it had become very necessary for the State Government to be very vigilant in respect of such areas which are community lands, particularly, as in the case of a tank and as the State Government realized that it is in respect of the tank bed located in Sy. No.211 of K.G. Banasawadi Village, petitioners and many others had filed applications for re-grant orders under the provisions of Inams Act and after the State Government having convinced that the re-grant orders as claimed by the petitioners to be the basis for their names being entered in the revenue records being not genuine orders, perhaps fabricated orders, action was necessary to be taken not only for changing the entries in the revenue records by deleting the names of the petitioners but also for resumption of the land to the State, hold and to retain it and in this regard submission of Sri. Krishna Murthy, learned Special Government Advocate is that the State Government has, as of now fenced off the available extent of land in Sy.No.211; that the present order being one for achieving this laudable purpose and also after noticing the fraudulent manner of claims put forth by the writ petitioners in getting the revenue entries mutated in their names based on bogus or forged document as it has been established on verification by the State Forensic Science Laboratory and on the opinion of the experts, the so called signature of the Special Deputy Commissioner on the re-grant order produced by the writ petitioners was not found to be genuine, but forged signature and therefore such follow up action having been taken, the action is very justified, proper, bonafide and therefore does not warrant any interference by this court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. With reference to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State and other statutory functionaries, Mr. Krishna Murthy, learned Special Government Advocate has drawn special attention to paragraph-26 of the statement of objections and has submitted that apart from the re-grant order being a fabricated document, inference is inevitable in this regard for the reason that the subject land which is a tank bed area as per the revenue records way back in the year 1890, is a land or area which is not available for re-grant under the provisions of section 3 read with section 9 of the Inams Act and therefore has submitted that the very possibility of the Special Deputy Commissioner passing re-grant order being not available in law, orders are obviously concocted; that no Special Deputy Commissioner would have passed such an order as it was not permitted in law and therefore also has submitted that the petitioners’ claim of re-grant order as basis for the revenue entries itself being bogus claim, consequence is only being reflected in the impugned order and therefore no need for interference. 12. In this regard, Mr. Krishna Murthy, learned Special Government Advocate has taken me through the provisions of Sections 3[b], 3[c] and 3[h] and section 9 of the Inams Act reading as under: “3. 12. In this regard, Mr. Krishna Murthy, learned Special Government Advocate has taken me through the provisions of Sections 3[b], 3[c] and 3[h] and section 9 of the Inams Act reading as under: “3. Consequence of the vesting of an inam in the State:- (1) When the notification under sub-section (4) of Section 1 in respect of any inam has been published in the Mysore Gazette, then notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting, and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely:- (a) xxx xxxx xxx (b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar including those in all communal lands, uncultivated lands, whether assessed or not, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State of Mysore, free from all encumbrances; (c) the inamdar shall cease to have any interest in the inam other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act; (h) the inamdar and any other person whose rights have vested in the State of Mysore under clause (b) shall be entitled only to compensation from the Government as provided in this Act.” 9. Lands and buildings to vest in the inamdar:- (1) Every inamdar shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant of all lands other than- (i) communal lands, waste lands, gomal lands, forest lands, tank beds, mines, quarries, rivers, streams, tanks and irrigation works; (ii) lands in respect of which any person is entitled to be registered under Section 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8; and (iii) lands upon which have been erected buildings owned by any person other than the inamdar. (2) Every building situated within the limits of the inam which was owned immediately before the date of vesting by the inamdar shall, with effect on and from such date, vest in the inamdar. (2) Every building situated within the limits of the inam which was owned immediately before the date of vesting by the inamdar shall, with effect on and from such date, vest in the inamdar. Explanation-In this section ‘inamdar’ means an inamdar other than a holder of a minor inam referred to in Section 7.” and with reference to Rule-16 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, [for short ‘the Code’] which is the rule relating to grant of temporary leases in respect of tank bed area has submitted that there is absolutely no scope for such land i.e., tank bed area having been re-granted in favour of the writ petitioners and therefore if such is the legal position and on factual position if the State Government is convinced that the orders are forged documents, there is no possibility of any revenue entry being made in favour of the writ petitioners based on such non-existent, illegal order and therefore correction effected for deleting the name of the writ petitioners from the revenue records and also for consequential action is fully justified in law and no interference is warranted. 13. To make submission that even a re-grant order under section 5 of the Inams Act reading as under: 5. Permanent tenants to be registered as occupants on certain conditions:- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), every permanent tenant of the inamdar shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of all lands of which he was a permanent tenant immediately before the date of vesting; Provided that no person who has been admitted into possession of any land by an inamdar on or after the first day of July 1948, shall, except where the Deputy Commissioner after an examination of all the circumstances otherwise directs, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of such land. (2) In addition to the annual land revenue payable in respect of the land, a permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant of any land under sub-section (1), shall be liable to pay to the Government, as premium for acquisition of ownership of that land, an amount equal to twenty times such land revenue. (2) In addition to the annual land revenue payable in respect of the land, a permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant of any land under sub-section (1), shall be liable to pay to the Government, as premium for acquisition of ownership of that land, an amount equal to twenty times such land revenue. The amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments along with the annual land revenue and in default of such payment, the amount due shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect of which it is payable. Provided that where a permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant of land under sub-section (1) is shown as a registered occupant in the settlement register and other records referred to in Section 117 of the Land Revenue Code or where the rent paid by a permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant under sub-section (1) is not more than the land revenue, no premium shall be payable under this subsection.” is not a possibility, Mr. Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate has drawn attention of the court to the provisions of section 231 of the Code reading as under: “231. Applicability to kayamgutta villages of provisions relating to alienated villages:-All the provisions of the Act relating to alienated villages shall apply to Kayamgutta Villages, i.e., villages held on an assessment permanently fixed.” and has submitted that the provisions of the Code are also made applicable to alienated villages as definition of ‘alienated village’ is found in section 3[19] of the Code, which reads as under: “3. Interpretation Section:-In this Act, unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context- (19) “Alienated” means transferred in so far as rights of Government to payment of the rent or land revenue are concerned, wholly or partially, to the ownership of any person” and in continuation with section 99 of the Code which reads as under: “99. Interpretation Section:-In this Act, unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context- (19) “Alienated” means transferred in so far as rights of Government to payment of the rent or land revenue are concerned, wholly or partially, to the ownership of any person” and in continuation with section 99 of the Code which reads as under: “99. Government may, by commission, confer certain powers on holders of alienated lands:-It shall be lawful for the Government at any time to issue a commissioner to any holder of alienated lands, conferring upon him all or any of the following powers in respect of the land specified in such commission, namely; (a) to demand security for the payment of the land revenue or rent due to him, and, if the same be not furnished, to take such precautions as the Deputy Commissioner is authorized to take under Sections 147 to 149, except the power to fine under para 3 of Section 148, or to sell the crop under Section 149; (b) to attach the property of persons making default in the payment of such land revenue or rent as aforesaid; (c) to exercise the powers of a Deputy Commissioner under Sections 63 and 64; (d) to receive notices of relinquishment under Section 71, and to determine the date up to which such notices shall be received as in that section provided; and (e) to take measures for the maintenance and repair of boundary marks in the manner provided for Survey Officers in section 130; Provided that the powers contemplated in clauses (c) to (e), both inclusive, shall be conferred only on holders of lands to which a survey settlement has been extended. And provided further that the Government may in its discretion invest any holders of alienated village with any of the powers of a Deputy Commissioner under this Act, when such holder has, within the thirty years before the passing of this Act, regularly exercised corresponding powers whenever the estate has been in his own management.” the consequence is that there is no possibility of a re-grant order in terms of section 5 of the Inams Act also and therefore also a claim based on re-grant orders purporting to be under section 5 of the Inams Act are only bogus claims and not a possibility in law at all and therefore also has submitted that the writ petitions should be dismissed. 14. On behalf of the writ petitioners, attention is drawn to section 5 of the Inams Act and that there being no express prohibition or absolute embargo for re-grant in respect of even the tank bed area, particularly, in situation when the tank either has gone dry or can be no more used as a tank and such being the situation contemplated in terms of rule 16[3] of the Code which reads as under: 16. Grant of tank beds for temporary cultivation:- (3) Beds of tanks finally abandoned maybe given out for cultivation permanently after being sub-divided and assessed in the same manner as other unassessed lands. But all such lands should ordinarily be sold by public auction and the sales should be held by the Revenue Sub-Division Officer. The Revenue Commissioner may in special cases, order their disposal for an upset price equivalent to their market value. The beds of kattes or the so called tanks which have no atchkat under them may be disposed of by the Revenue Commissioner in the manner he deems fit.” it is submitted that it is not possible for re-grant being made in terms of section 5 of the Act. 15. Submissions made at behalf of the petitioners and the State Government for which purpose Sri. Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate has made valiant efforts to convince this court, are unfortunately irrelevant for the purpose of decision in these writ petitions. 16. The present writ petitions are only one for examination of the tenability of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner exercising his statutory power of revision under section 136[3] of the Act. 17. Section 136[3] of the Act reads as under: “136. Appeal and Revision:- (3) The Deputy Commissioner may, on his own motion or on application of a party, call for and 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.” 18. This is a power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner for effecting correction either in the proceedings or in an order passed by the Tahsildar in the first instance under Sections 127 and 129 of the Act. The revenue authority-Tahsildar and revisional authority is the Deputy Commissioner. This is a power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner for effecting correction either in the proceedings or in an order passed by the Tahsildar in the first instance under Sections 127 and 129 of the Act. The revenue authority-Tahsildar and revisional authority is the Deputy Commissioner. Though no time limit has been indicated in section 136 of the Act, it has been held by this court it has to be exercised within the reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. 19. Mr. Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate has very vehemently submitted that the petitioners having a remedy in terms of the proviso to section 135 of the Act even in respect of entries made under section 136[3] of the Act, no need for this court to examine the correctness or otherwise of the entries and the petitioners should be relegated if at all to approach civil court if they have any grievance as against entries etc. 20. The court exercising judicial review does not sit in appeal over the orders passed by the revenue authorities whether under section 136[2] or section 136[3] of the Act, but what is reviewed is the manner of functioning of the authority and as to whether the power is really available for the action taken and as to whether power is exercised in a proper, bonafide manner. 21. The power under section 136[3] of the Act is only for correcting the revenue entries based on the action taken by the Tahsildar either under section 127 or under section 129 of the Act. Neither the Tahsildar nor the revisional authority have any power to characterize the quality of the transaction based on which entries have been made. As to whether the order based on which some entry whether took place or not in the year 1972 as claimed by the writ petitioners and not a real entry but a false entry even as submitted by Sri. Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate, as it is submitted that two sets of entries are found in the revenue records, is a question not merely confining to the correctness or otherwise of entry made by the Tahsildar under sections 127 or 129 of the Act, but goes much beyond the scope of these two provisions. Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate, as it is submitted that two sets of entries are found in the revenue records, is a question not merely confining to the correctness or otherwise of entry made by the Tahsildar under sections 127 or 129 of the Act, but goes much beyond the scope of these two provisions. In fact, in the present order, the Deputy Commissioner based on whatever information that either he got from the Tahsildar or further verification of the information, has gone ahead further not only to anul the earlier order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner purporting to be under section 5 of the land and for consequential directions being issued to the Tahsildar. 22. Such actions obviously go far beyond the scope of the power under section 136[3] of the Act. While it is neither necessary nor proper for this court to go into the question of correctness or otherwise of the grant order, whether it is forged, fabricated or petitioners have overreached the provisions of law and if any revenue authority has been manipulated and orders brought about, they are all matters which could have been independently examined and corrective action taken under the appropriate enabling provision of law. For the present purpose, it is suffice to observe that section 136[3] of the Act does not enable such actions to be taken purporting to exercise revisional jurisdiction for correction of a mere revenue entry. 23. In this state of affairs, while the impugned order at Annexure-A in both the petitions cannot be sustained, even on bonafides of the exercise of power, the valiant effort on the part of Sri. Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate that it is bonafide exercised has not been very successful, particularly, as it is found that the revenue authorities woke up to the situation even as per their own pleadings only because some communication had been addressed by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority as found in the records and copy of which is placed before this court and a further report of the Tahsildar to the Deputy Commissioner, a reading of these two letters which was read in the court hall by Sri. Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate, only shows that the revenue authorities have virtually stumbled upon some possible irregularity because of warning signal sounded by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and not on their own. Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate, only shows that the revenue authorities have virtually stumbled upon some possible irregularity because of warning signal sounded by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and not on their own. This state of affairs reflects very poorly in the manner of governance and also manner of functioning of the revenue department in the State. The Deputy Commissioner who has been conferred with the revisional power is also saddled with duty to ensure that the revenue records maintained by the revenue department are periodically scrutinized, verified for the correctness or otherwise of the subsequent entries made in the revenue records as per orders of the Tahsildar either under the provisions of sections 127 and 129 of the Act and take corrective measures as and when it becomes necessary. 24. There appears to be no system in place either to verify or cross verify nor any periodical checks made in the revenue department to ascertain as to whether the entries are being correctly made, particularly, the subsequent entries which are being made to the existing entries. 25. In the absence of a proper corrective and review system, there is lot of scope for manipulation of the entries and it has become a legion that higher revenue authorities such as the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have been exercising appellate power and revisional power respectively at their whims and fancies at any point of time and at the instance of any party who lacks bonafides file an appeal or revision and revenue authorities very promptly responding calling in aid some fraud or illegality that had taken place in the last generation or decades ago for effecting corrections in the revenue record. Such manner of functioning reflects very poorly on the system of administration. Any power also is coupled with the duty and it is the duty of the revenue authorities to periodically verify as to what is happening and take suitable and corrective steps as and when necessary. 26. Such manner of functioning reflects very poorly on the system of administration. Any power also is coupled with the duty and it is the duty of the revenue authorities to periodically verify as to what is happening and take suitable and corrective steps as and when necessary. 26. While there is no limit imposed under section 136[3] of the Act, it is brought to the notice of the court in these two writ petitions that the Deputy Commissioner exercising power under section 136[3] of the Act has not acted on relevant considerations and within the permits of statutory power and has been acting on considerations and material much outside the scope of the provisions of section 136 of the Act. Such repeated misuse or abuse of statutory power cannot be permitted by this court. 27. While the State Government’s predicament in being pressurized in the wake of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court having issued time bound directions to the State Government to produce action for reclaiming lost Government lands from encroachers and land grabbers and therefore required to take urgent remedial action can be understood and their awareness to State Government’s lands whether tank bed, river banks, coastal lands or even forest land being acquired to be conserved, preserved and protected and therefore taking commensurate steps in this direction and beginning made in recent times can be appreciated, but with all that it is high time that the State Government realizes it is the rule of law that governs our society; that even the State has no function within the limits of law. Statutory authorities are all bound and should learn to function within the statutory powers; that every power is also accompanied with a corresponding duty; that power and duty are two sides of the same coin and every authority is also saddled with the responsibility and therefore any action by the State or on behalf of the State can be sustained only when it is within the limits of law, for ensuring that rule of law prevails and when statutory power is exercised for bonafide purpose on relevant consideration and as envisaged in the statue itself, but cannot be sustained if these ingredients are absent in any action by the State and unfortunately for the respondents, the impugned orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner purporting to exercise his revisional jurisdiction under section 136[3] of the Act fail on more than one count when tested on the touchstone of above requirements. 28. On examination of the two orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner questioned in these writ petitions, it is found that the exercise of power is not in a bonafide manner and also not on relevant considerations and in fact what is achieved under the order and directions issued under the two orders go much beyond the statutory power as conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under section 136[3] of the Act. 29. One another circumstance which does not project or show the State Government or the Deputy Commissioner have acted in bonafide etc., is lack of material placed before the court with regard to the grant taken in respect of other persons who perhaps were in occupation of the remaining extent of land in Sy.No.211 of K.G. Banasawadi Village, particularly, as it is the version of the respondents that the tank bed area measured an extent of 42 acres 38 guntas whereas sum total in respect of the land of the petitioners measures 17 acres and if so a like action in respect of other extent of land would have been a circumstance to vindicate the bonafides of the action taken. In the absence of it, even the bonafides of the Deputy Commissioner for invoking power based on either the report of the Tahsildar or on the report by the Forensic Science Laboratory is not very acceptable version on behalf of the respondents. 30. In the absence of it, even the bonafides of the Deputy Commissioner for invoking power based on either the report of the Tahsildar or on the report by the Forensic Science Laboratory is not very acceptable version on behalf of the respondents. 30. Therefore, while these writ petitions are allowed, impugned orders both dated 10.6.2010 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under section 136[3] of the Act [copy at Annexure-A in both the writ petitions] are quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. 31. The Deputy Commissioner is restrained from exercising the very power yet again for one more abusive or illegal order to be brought into existence. On the other hand, liberty is reserved to the State Government and the revenue authorities to take corrective action elsewhere for any corrective measures if needed as asserted by Sri. Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate that the petitioners are claiming some right, title and interest based on some bogus re-grant orders or based on forged signature of earlier Special Deputy Commissioner. They are all matters which have to be examined independently in appropriate proceedings and not in a provision like revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Deputy Commissioner under section 136[3] of the Act and it is for this reason, the Deputy Commissioner is restrained from exercising the very power yet again. 32. It is for these reasons, these writ petitions have to be inevitably allowed reserving liberty to the State Government only for action under the provisions other than section 136[3] of the Act. Rule made absolute.