Judgment :- 1. Writ petitions without any rhyme or reason, frivolous writ petitions by persons who have grievance regarding title approach revenue authorities for manipulating the revenue records to their advantage and to the disadvantage of their rivals. 2. The conduct of the revenue authorities is no better and their orders which are more influenced by other considerations, some times may turn out correct also as a person who perhaps is entitled for an order has been able to influence them better than their rivals etc. 3. Be that as it may, the correctness or otherwise of entries in the revenue records do not constitute a fit matter for examination in writ jurisdiction and the examination if at all is only as to the manner of exercise of statutory power and authority by the revenue functionaries acting under the provisions of Chapter-XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) starting from sections 127 to 136 of the Act regulating the entries to be made in the revenue records for the purpose of identifying the person from whom the land revenue is to be collected. 4. Revenue entries are not either proof or source of title but a presumption in terms of section 133 of the Act has been the cause fro unending litigation and bestowing more importance on these revenue entries than they actually deserve. 5. The present writ petitions do not have any more significance than what is observed above as person claming as agreement holder with the khatedar had got his name mutated and on the death of the original khatedar, not as agreement holder, but as legal heir purporting to be with the consent of respondents 4 and 5 other legal heirs. 6. However, these respondents having become wise later though initially had not pursued the matter seriously had invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner after a gap and the Assistant Commissioner exercising appellate power under section 136(2) of the Act has allowed the appeal to delete the name of the petitioner from the revenue records, but to continue the name of respondents 4 and 5, a further revision before the Deputy Commissioner also having failed, the present writ petition before this court. 7. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. 7. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. Praveen R.J.S., learned counsel very vehemently urges that the Assistant Commissioner has assumed jurisdiction where he had none: that the appeal was belated one accompanied by application for condonation of delay, but even when strong objections had been raised to the delayed appeal, the Assistant Commissioner even without examining the objections has proceeded to pass orders on the merits of the appeal and therefore the order is per se bad in law; that the respondents very conveniently suppressed the earlier proceedings invoking the very jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, but had got aborted as those appeals had been withdrawn etc; that the manner of exercise of power and jurisdiction by Assistant Commissioner warrants interference by this court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Sri. R. Omkumar, learned Additional Government advocate to whom advance copy of the writ petition has been served, points out that the whole thing is a drama; that the agreement was not acted upon earlier as it was obviously the subject land being a granted land which could not have been alienated within a period of fifteen days without attracting the penal consequences and the Assistant Commissioner if at all has taken note of some developments on the civil side, particularly, as suit for specific performance which had been filed by the writ petitioner against respondents 4 and 5 had been rejected, civil court noticing the condition and the Assistant Commissioner acted only after those audit though in the belated appeal etc., no want of jurisdiction or lack of bona fides can be attributed to the Assistant Commissioner and the appeal by the first appellate court though had been allowed, the appellate order in turn having been stayed in second appeal filed by the respondents in RSA No.1925 of 2008 and the Deputy Commissioner having taken note of this development, has dismissed the revision petition, there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner either; that the present writ petitions lack merit and are to be dismissed. 9. Manipulation of revenue entries by parties has become rampant and more importance is attached to the revenue entries than determination by the civil court and until and unless this tendency, particularly, avarice tendency on the part of the parties undergoes a change, such manipulations continue. 10. 9. Manipulation of revenue entries by parties has become rampant and more importance is attached to the revenue entries than determination by the civil court and until and unless this tendency, particularly, avarice tendency on the part of the parties undergoes a change, such manipulations continue. 10. While precious time of this court is wasted by such frivolous writ petitions and therefore tendency of this nature should not only be deprecated, but strongly discouraged, these writ petitions are dismissed levying cost of Rs.10,000/-on the petitioner which amount is to be deposited in the registry within four weeks from today and the amount to be credited to the account of the High Court Legal Service Committee. 11. 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.