Judgment 1. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned Advocates it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Sri P. Narayanappa, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 4. Notice to respondent 5 is dispensed with since no order adverse to the interest of fifth respondent is being passed in this writ petition. 3. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by third respondent in R.A. (DH) No. 214 of 2006-07, dated 2-7-2010 filed a revision under Section 136(3) before second respondent in R.P. No. 59 of 2010-11. Deputy Commissioner by impugned order dated 25-6-2012 was of the opinion that he lacked jurisdiction to entertain revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by relying upon the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No. 11953 of 2011 in Mallegowda v Channaveeregowda and Others. It would be relevant to notice at this juncture that Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 5546 of 2011, disposed of on 22-11-2011 while examining the correctness of the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 20337 of 2010, dated 30-6-2011, wherein order of Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to Assistant Commissioner was under challenge before learned Single Judge had opined that Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and said finding of the learned Single Judge was not accepted by Division Bench and it has been held as under: “The learned Single Judge has also opined that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. We are unable to subscribe to this view in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Gururaj Gurunath Govind Rao Mutalik Desai v State of Karnataka, AIR 1995 Kant. 267 (FB). This decision has recently been applied by a learned Single Judge in B. Mahadevaiah v. State of Karnataka, 2006 (5) AIR Kar. R. 69. Therefore, the learned Single Judge in the instant case fell into error in holding the view that the Deputy Commissioner had proceeded without jurisdiction”. (emphasis supplied). 4. 267 (FB). This decision has recently been applied by a learned Single Judge in B. Mahadevaiah v. State of Karnataka, 2006 (5) AIR Kar. R. 69. Therefore, the learned Single Judge in the instant case fell into error in holding the view that the Deputy Commissioner had proceeded without jurisdiction”. (emphasis supplied). 4. In view of the law laid down by Division Bench and when applied to facts of the case and same is examined it can be noticed that second respondent has held that revision is not maintainable while examining the correctness or otherwise of the order passed under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In view of the findings given by Division Bench in writ appeal referred to supra revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 136(3) is required to be entertained by second respondent and it is to be held maintainable. Hence order passed by Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable. In the result following order is passed. 1. Writ petition is hereby allowed. 2. Order passed by second respondent in R.P. No. 59 of 2010-11, dated 25-6-2012 is hereby quashed. 3. Second respondent is hereby directed to examine the revision afresh on merits and in accordance with law after issuing notice to all parties. It is made clear this Court has not examined the contentions of petitioner with regard to merits of the case and same is kept open. Ordered accordingly.