Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order passed in R.A.No.14/08-09 dated 24.8.2009, Annexure ‘D’ whereunder the revision filed by petitioner under Section 136 (3) has been allowed and the order passed by second respondent dated 3.9.2007, Annexure ‘C’ has been set aside. 2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under: One Sri Gangi Reddy purchased the property bearing Sy.No.48 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas situated at Jakkenahalli, D Palya, Gowribidnur. On an application made for change of katha revenue authorities entered the name of said Sri Gangi Reddy and mutated the revenue records which reflected the name of said Sri Gangi Reddy. Sri G. Nagaraju, 4th respondent herein made a claim over the said property and he filed an appeal assailing the revenue entries in RA(G)3/2007-08 made in the name of Sri Gangi Reddy contending that his grand father had partitioned family property and allotted the property in question to his son, Sri Bhimaiah i.e, 4th respondent’s father and on the death of said Bhimaiah, 4th respondent has succeeded to the property. The fact of Sale Deed under which Sri Gangi Reddy acquired title to the property in question was denied. The said appeal filed by 4th respondent came to be dismissed on 3.9.2007. On such dismissal, 4th respondent filed a suit for declaration of his title in respect of the land in question in O.S.No.271/2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Gowribidanur. However, 4th respondent parallely pursued his grievance before the first respondent by questioning the order dated 3.9.2007 rejecting his appeal No.R.A.(G) No.3/2007-08 by filing a revision petition under Section 136(3) r/w. Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Said revision petition came to be allowed by an order dated 24.8.2009 Annexure ‘D’, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri M.Shiva Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Mithun, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.D. Ashwatha Narayan for respondent No.4 Perused the records. 4. 3. Heard Sri M.Shiva Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Mithun, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.D. Ashwatha Narayan for respondent No.4 Perused the records. 4. It is the contention of Sri Shiva Prakash, learned Counsel for petitioners that respondent No.1 committed a serious error in ignoring the registered Sale Deed dated 15.4.1974 and the mutation proceedings MR.No.21/74-75 whereunder, the name of Sri Gangi Reddy had been entered and as such allowing of the revision petition by 1st respondent without any cogent reasons is liable to be set aside. He would contend that when there is a registered Sale Deed executed in favour of the first petitioner’s husband and father of petitioners 2 and 3, the respondent authorities were fully justified in mutating the name of the said Gangi Reddy in the revenue records which did not call for any interference. He would further submit that 4th respondent claimed title to the property on the ground that the vendors of Gangi Reddy did not have absolute right and said issue could not be resolved in the proceedings under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the parties are required to get the said dispute adjudicated in a competent civil Court and as such, there was no justifiable cause for the first respondent to upset the findings of respondents 2 and 3 particularly when 4th respondent himself has filed a suit in O.S.No.271/2007 seeking cancellation of the Sale Deed executed in favour of Gangi Reddy and for declaration of title to the land in question in his favour. As such, it is contended that first respondent was not justified in entertaining the revision petition under Sub Section (3) of Section 136 of the Act. On these grounds, he seeks for quashing of the impugned order and allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would support the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of writ petition. 6. On these grounds, he seeks for quashing of the impugned order and allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would support the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of writ petition. 6. Sri Mithun, learned Counsel appearing for 4th respondent by supporting the impugned order would contend that the very filed by 4th respondent before second respondent cannot be construed as an appeal filed under Sub Section (2) of Section 136, but it has to be construed as an appeal filed under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short ‘the Act’) in as much as it was only an entry which was challenged and it was not a disputed entry and as such, Chapter V of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act gets excluded to an appeal filed under Section 136 of the Act. Even otherwise, he would contend that it is to be construed as an appeal under Section 49 and further revision filed before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.14/08-09 is to be construed as a second appeal under Section 50 of the Act. He would draw the attention of this Court to contend that appeals filed by petitioner and 4th respondent before the second respondent as well as before the first respondent was under Section 136(2) r/w. Section 49 and 136(3) r/w. Section 50 respectively. As such, he contends that the jurisdiction exercised by the first respondent is proper and does not call for any interference. Elaborating his submissions, he would further contend that the issue regarding maintainability of the revision petition under sub Section (3) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act recedes to be background in view of the contention now raised by 4th respondent that appeal filed by the 4th respondent before the first respondent to be construed as a second appeal filed under Section 50 of the Act. He would also contend that the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2011 Kar 4225 is to be distinguished on facts. 7. He would also contend that the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2011 Kar 4225 is to be distinguished on facts. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the impugned orders as also the records, the following points arise for my consideration: 2nd 1) Whether appeal R.A.(G) No.3/2007-08 filed by 4th respondent before the respondent is to be treated as an appeal under Section 49 or as an appeal under Sub Section (2) of Section 136 and whether the appeal filed by the 4th respondent before the first respondent in R.A.No.14/2008-09 is to be treated as a second appeal under Section 50 or revision under Sub Section (3) of Section 136 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act? 2) Whether the impugned order is to be sustained or quashed? 3) What order? 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be of benefit to extract the provisions which has been pressed into service namely, Sections, 49, 50, 129 and 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. They read as under: SEC.49. Appeals from original orders: Save as otherwise expressly provided, on appeal shall lie from every original order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder (and from every order made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908). They read as under: SEC.49. Appeals from original orders: Save as otherwise expressly provided, on appeal shall lie from every original order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder (and from every order made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908). (a) if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner [whether or not invested (or delegated) with the powers of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner), to the Assistant Commissioner; (b) if such an order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner whether or not invested with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner, to the Deputy Commissioner; (c) if such an order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, to the Tribunal; (d) if such an order is passed by the Regional Commissioner, to the Tribunal;] (e) if such an order is passed by a [Survey Officer below the rank of an Assistant Director of Land Records or Assistant Director for Settlement to the Assistant Director of Land Records or Assistant Director for Settlement], as the case may be; (f) if such an order is passed by a Survey Officer of the rank of an [Assistant Director of Land Records or Assistant Director for Settlement to the Joint Director of Land Records or Joint Director for Settlement], as the case may be; (g) if such an order is passed by the [Joint Director of Land Records or Joint Director for Settlement], to the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records; (h) if such an order is passed by the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, to the Tribunal]. SEC.50. Second Appeal: (1) A second appeal shall lie against any order passed in a first appeal u/S.49:- a) if such an order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner, to the Deputy Commissioner; b) If such an order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, to the Tribunal; (b-1) if such an order is passed by the [Assistant Director of Settlement or Assistant Director of Land Records], to the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records;] c) if such an order is passed by the [Joint Director of Land Records or Joint Director for Settlement] or by the [Director of Survey], Settlement and Land Records to the Tribunal. 2) An order passed on second appeal shall be final. 2) An order passed on second appeal shall be final. SEC.129:-Registration of Mutations and Register of Disputed Cases:- (1) The Prescribed Officer shall enter in the Register of Mutations every report made to him under sub-section (1) of Section 128 or received by him under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of the said section. (2) Whenever a Prescribed Officer makes an entry in the Register of Mutations, he shall at the same time post up a complete copy of the entry in a conspicuous place in the chavadi and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing from the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations to be interested in the mutation, and to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein. (3) Should any objection to any entry made under sub-section (1) in the Register of Mutations be made either orally or in writing to the Prescribed Officer, it shall be the duty of the Prescribed Officer to enter the particulars of the objection in a Register of Disputed Cases. (4) The objections entered in the Register of Disputed Cases and such other objections as may be made during the enquiry shall be enquired into and disposed of by such Officer and in such manner as may be prescribed. Orders disposing of such objections shall be recorded in the Register of Mutations by such Officer. (5) The Officer holding an enquiry under sub-section (4) shall have all the powers under Chapter III, that a Revenue Officer has in making a formal or summary enquiry under this Act. (6) Entries in the Register of Mutations shall be tested and if found correct or after correction, as the case may be, shall be certified by such Officer as may be prescribed. (7) The transfer of entries from the Registers of Mutations to the Record of Rights shall be effected in the prescribed manner, provided that an entry in the Register of Mutations shall not be transferred to the Record of Rights until such entry has been duly certified. SEC.136: Appeal and Revision:- (1) The provisions of Chapter V shall not apply to any decision or order under this Chapter. SEC.136: Appeal and Revision:- (1) The provisions of Chapter V shall not apply to any decision or order under this Chapter. (2) Any person affected by an order made under sub-section (4) or an entry certified under sub-section (6) of Section 129 may, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order or the knowledge of the entry certified, appeal to such Officer as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf and his decision shall be final; (3) The Deputy Commissioner may, on his own motion or on application of a party, call for an 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.” 9. Sub Section (1) of Section 136 excludes the provisions of Chapter V to any decision or order made under Chapter XI. Likewise, Section 49 starts with a saving Clause which reads as under: “Save as otherwise expressly provided, an appeal would lie from every original order passed by the Act or the Rules as made thereunder”. If the act itself expressly provides for an appeal, Section 49 would not be applicable in such circumstances. In other words, any order passed by the Revenue authority under Chapter XI would be subject to appeal and revision as provided under Section 136 of the Act only and recourse cannot be had to Section 49 or provisions of Chapter V. Likewise, every order passed under the Act is subject to appeal and revision as provided under Chapter V except those expressly provided under the Act itself. In other words, if the Act itself provides for any appeal or revision, the provisions of Chapter V does not get attracted. 10. In the instant case, the contention of learned Counsel for 4th respondent is that appeal filed by 4th respondent before 2nd respondent was under Section 136 r/w. Section 49 and as such, it is to be construed as an appeal under Section 49 and not as an appeal under Sub Section (2) of Section 136. It is no doubt true that mere quoting of a wrong provision of law would not change the nature of dispute or alter the jurisdiction of the forum. It is no doubt true that mere quoting of a wrong provision of law would not change the nature of dispute or alter the jurisdiction of the forum. To buttress this proposition, learned Counsel would contend that until and unless it is a disputed case as stated in sub section (2) of Section 136, an appeal cannot be filed against an entry made by the jurisdictional Tahsildar and only such of those cases where it is treated as a disputed entry alone would fall within the four corners of an order as stated in sub section (2) of Section 136 which enables the aggrieved party to file an appeal. This proposition of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted and it requires to be rejected for reasons more than one namely: i) Under sub section (2) of Section 136, if a person is affected by an order made under sub section (4) or an entry certified under sub section (6) of Section 129 would be entitled to file an appeal against such an order or entry as the case may be within 60 days from the date of communication of such order, to such Officer as prescribed under the Rules. Thus, appeal is provided under sub section (2) of Section 136 not only against an order passed under sub section (4) of Section 129, even against an entry made under sub section (6) of Section 129. Hence, if an entry is made by a jurisdictional Thasildar under sub section (4) of Section 129 and certifies such entry it gives rise for a cause of action to an aggrieved person to file an appeal under sub section (2) of Section 136. Likewise, if any objection is raised by a party for any entry being made in the revenue records and such claims are treated as disputed entry and after adjudication of rival claims an order is passed under sub section (4) of Section 129, even in such circumstances, aggrieved party can prefer an appeal under sub section (2) of Section 136. Likewise, if any objection is raised by a party for any entry being made in the revenue records and such claims are treated as disputed entry and after adjudication of rival claims an order is passed under sub section (4) of Section 129, even in such circumstances, aggrieved party can prefer an appeal under sub section (2) of Section 136. Thus, in any event, namely, either when the jurisdictional Tahsildar treats the case as a disputed case and adjudicates the claim and decides such claim under sub section (4) of Section 129, the appeal can be filed or when an entry is made in the Register of Mutuation and certified as such by an Officer under sub section (6) of Section 129, such entry is also amenable to challenge under Sub Section (2) of Section 136 of the Act. It is for this precise reason, the Legislature, in its wisdom has thought fit and necessary to exclude the provisions of Chapter V from the purview of Section 136 as provided under sub section (1) of Section 136 namely, the provisions of Chapter V has been held not to be applied to any decision or order made under Chapter XI since it is governed by self contained provisions. 2) Likewise, under Section 49 of Chapter V, an appeal lies against any original order passed under the Act. At this juncture, it is required to be noticed that the very contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that appeal filed by the 4th respondent before the second respondent is not to be construed as an appeal under sub section (2) of Section 136 but one under Section 49 on the ground that there was no such order and as such, it is not the appeal filed by the 4th respondent and it is not required to be treated as an appeal filed under sub section (2) of Section 136. If this argument is accepted (which was not) even then, under Section 49, it is the original order which could be questioned and admittedly, the learned Counsel contends that there is no such original order and for this reason also, Section 49 does not get attracted. 11. If this argument is accepted (which was not) even then, under Section 49, it is the original order which could be questioned and admittedly, the learned Counsel contends that there is no such original order and for this reason also, Section 49 does not get attracted. 11. In view of the above discussion, point No.1 deserves to be answered by holding that the appeal filed by 4th respondent before the second respondent in RA No.3/2007-08 was rightly treated by the second respondent as an appeal under sub section (2) of Section 136 and it was not an appeal under Section 49 of the Land Revenue Act. In view of the said finding, the supplemental point formulated in point No.1 by me hereinabove also deserves to be answered by holding that the appeal in R.A.No.14/08-09 filed by the 4th respondent before the first respondent cannot be construed or treated as a second appeal under Section 50 and as such it was rightly treated by the first respondent as a revision under sub section (3) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Re.point No.2: 12. The revision petition filed by petitioners under sub section (3) of Section 136 before the first respondent itself was not maintainable in as much as against an order passed under Section (2) of Section 136, no revision lies and co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Malle Gowda vs. Channaveera Gowda and Others reported in ILR 2011 Kar 4225 has categorically held as such and this Court has followed the same in the catena of judgments. In that view of the matter, revision petition filed by the 4th respondent before the first respondent in R.A.No.14/08-09 was not maintainable and as such, the order passed by the first respondent dated 24.8.2009 vide Annexure ‘D’ cannot be sustained. 13. Yet, another reason for this Court in not interfering with the findings of the first respondent and reason to affirm the order passed by the second respondent is the fact that 4th respondent claims title to the property in question by assailing the Sale Deed dated 15.4.1974 executed in favour of Sri Gangi Reddy claiming that such Sale Deed not have been executed by Rangadamappa, Narayanappa and Govindappa. In fact, 4th respondent has already filed a suit in O.S.No.271/2007 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC seeking for cancellation of said Sale Deed and declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. It is fairly submitted by the learned Counsel for 4th respondent that said suit has been dismissed and an appeal has been filed and same is pending. It would be needless to state that any entries made in the revenue records would be subject to result of the decision of the Civil Court and as such, the entries made by the revenue authorities in the name of Sri Gangi Reddy subsequently to the name of petitioners as his legal heirs cannot be found fault with. 14. In the result, the following order is passed: i) Writ petition is hereby allowed. ii) Order passed by the 4th respondent in RA.No.14/08-09 dated 24.8.2009 vide Annexure ‘D’ is hereby quashed and order passed by 2nd respondent date 3.9.2007 – Annexure ‘C’ is restored. iii) No order as to costs. iv) Ordered accordingly.