Judgment : 1. Petitioners have called in question orders dated 28-10-2011 passed by 1st respondent in No.RRT(2)N(A)CR.158 to 161/2009-10, Annexures-M, N, P and Q, respectively, whereunder, the claim of the petitioners to retain their names in the revenue records have been rejected and petitioners’ names have been ordered to be deleted. 2. Heard Sri Ramesh P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. On 12-12-1956, the Tahsildar, Devanahalli is said to have granted 1 acre 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.404 in favour of one Sri Budan Sab alias Kyatasandra Budansab pursuant to which, the revenue records were mutated in his name and khata is also said to be made out in his name. petitioners herein claim to be the lineal descendants of said Mr. Budansab. The Tahsildar, in the year 1959 has cancelled the grant made in favour of Mr. Budansab and questioning the said order of cancellation, an appeal came to be filed by Budansab before the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner by order dated 31-8-1959 dismissed the appeal vide Annexure-B. Tahsildar is said to have cancelled the said grant on the ground that the land has already been granted in favour of Panchayat. The Assistant Commissioner, while dismissing the appeal filed by the grantee, has made an observation that Budansab has made investments over the land by digging a well and had improved the same and as such recommended to the Village Panchayat to consider the prayer of Budansab the grantee for granting the land in his favour. Thereafter, upto 1975, no action was taken and in the year 1975, Budansab has made a request seeking restoration of grant made in his favour by submitting a representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division. The said authority in turn has made a recommendation to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore as per communication dated 16-7-1975 vide Annexure-C. Thereafter, no proceedings have taken place and petitioners and their predecessor in title have also not pursued their claim, in this regard. 4. The said authority in turn has made a recommendation to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore as per communication dated 16-7-1975 vide Annexure-C. Thereafter, no proceedings have taken place and petitioners and their predecessor in title have also not pursued their claim, in this regard. 4. On 24-1-2011, 1st respondent herein issued notice to the petitioners exercising suo motu powers under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 stating inter alia that, without title and without records, names of the petitioners have continued in the revenue records and called upon them to show cause as to why their names should not be deleted or cancelled. On considering the reply filed, 1st respondent herein, by order dated 28-10-2011, has ordered the names of petitioners should be deleted from the revenue records. 5. The impugned orders would clearly go to show that petitioners, except claiming right under the original grant dated 12-12-1956, have not been able to demonstrate before the 1st respondent as to whether they possess any independent right or otherwise to the landing question. The land in question i.e., Sy.No.404 was admittedly granted in favour of Sri Budansab on 12-12-1956, which came to be cancelled by the Tahsildar on 31-8-1959 and said order of cancellation had become final by virtue of the appeal filed by Budansab having been dismissed on 31-8-1951 vide Annexure-B. In other words, the right of Budansab to the land in question got extinguished and as such, Budansab did not possess any right over the land in question. In the absence of Budansab having any right to the property in question, petitioners, who claim to be the lineal descendants of Budansab, would also not get right automatically. Merely because the revenue authorities had then made recommendations for grant of land to Budansab based on his alleged possession that by itself would not confer any right to the petitioners over the land in question. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the 1st respondent at Annexures-M, N, P and Q does not call for interference. However, it would be necessary to observe that the revenue authorities viz., the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner have repeatedly made recommendations to the higher authorities to regrant the land in favour of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the 1st respondent at Annexures-M, N, P and Q does not call for interference. However, it would be necessary to observe that the revenue authorities viz., the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner have repeatedly made recommendations to the higher authorities to regrant the land in favour of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the petitioners herein are at liberty to pursue their grievance, if any, with the authorities in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following.- ORDER Writ petitions are dismissed subject to observations made hereinabove. Sri Jagadeesh Mundargi, learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today.