Judgment 1. Sri. R. Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Notice to the respondent Nos.5 to 8 is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner has called into question the Assistant Commissioner’s order, dated 28.10.2008 (Annexure-J) and the Deputy Commissioner’s order, dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure-K). 3. The detailed advertence to the facts of the case may not be necessary. The petitioner claims that her husband late Sri Anjanappa had 2 wives herself and Kempamma. Alleging that the joint family property was wrongly mutated in favour of the respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8, they filed the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that the coparcenary rights of the parties cannot be determined by the revenue authorities. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, the petitioner and Kempamma filed the revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition holding that the revenue authorities are not competent to adjudicate the relationship, succession and legal heirship of the parties, etc. 4. Sri P. Narayanappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the revenue authorities have misread a vital aspect of the matter. He submits that there is no dispute of coparcenary right between the petitioner and the contesting respondents. He further submits that the contesting respondents are not related to the petitioner. 5. Sri. R. Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that M.R.No.39/2005-06 is based on the sale deed only. He submits that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are not assailable at all. 6. This Court in the case of Mallegowda v. C. Channaveeregowda and others reported in ILR 2011 Kar 4225 has expressed the considered view that the entries in the revenue records are only a reflection of the rights. If the parties want the determination or adjudication of their rights, they are required to approach the Civil Court. 7. This petition is disposed of without interfering in the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, but by making it clear that M.R.No.39/2005 is to be brought in conformity with the Civil Court’s judgment, if, as and when the petitioner or the persons interested in the land file a duly constituted suit and obtain the decree from the competent Civil Court. Reiterating that M.R.No.39/2005-06 is subject to the final outcome of the suit proceedings. If initiated, this petition is dismissed.