ORDER B.S. Patil , J.—In this writ petition, the State is calling in question the order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, dropping the suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') for cancellation of the entries in the revenue records standing in the name of respondent No. 3 herein-Sri K. Nagaraj in respect of Sy. No. 50/P16 measuring 4 acres situated at Kudura Gere Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk. The Tahsildar, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, Yelahanka, Bangalore, in his letter dated 18.11.2008 reported to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, that the entries in the revenue records in respect of the land in question standing in the name of Smt. Ramakka wife of late Munivenkatappa were not genuine. He further pointed out that the land was classified as a genial Government land and in respect of the said land, the revenue records entered in the name of Ramakka was without any basis as no record showing the grant of land in favour of Ramakka wife of late Munivenkatappa was forthcoming in his office. 2. Based on this letter, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, has initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act. Pursuant to the notice issued, both Ramakka and the subsequent purchaser from her Sri K. Nagaraj - respondent No. 3 herein have appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and have filed their objections. They have contended that the land in question was granted in favour of Munivenkatappa during the year 1978 and since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the land and all the revenue records were made over in his name. Upon the death of Munivenkatappa, the revenue records were effected in the name of his wife Smt. Ramakka by virtue of mutation effected vide MR. No. 35/1994-95. Thereafter, Ramakka sold the land in favour of respondent No. 3 herein Sri K. Nagaraj son of late Kulandai Reddy under the registered Sale Deed dated 06.03.2008 and pursuant to the said Sale Deed, khatha has been changed in the name of the purchaser by virtue of the certified mutation entry effected in MR. No. 3/2010-11. 3. No. 35/1994-95. Thereafter, Ramakka sold the land in favour of respondent No. 3 herein Sri K. Nagaraj son of late Kulandai Reddy under the registered Sale Deed dated 06.03.2008 and pursuant to the said Sale Deed, khatha has been changed in the name of the purchaser by virtue of the certified mutation entry effected in MR. No. 3/2010-11. 3. Considering the objections filed and the records available, the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there was no substance in the suspicion entertained by the Tahsildar regarding the genuineness of the entries effected in the revenue records. He has found that the land was granted in favour of Munivenkatappa way back in the year 1978 and accordingly his name came to be mutated in the revenue records followed by the entries in the pahanis/RTC's. Thereafter, when Munivenkatappa died, by virtue of inheritance, the name of Ramakka, the widow of Munivenkatappa has been entered in the revenue records. Therefore, it could not be said that the entries made in the name of Munivenkatappa and subsequently, in the name of Ramakka were illegal and baseless. 4. The Deputy Commissioner has further found that as one Muniyappa S/o. Munithimmaiah was claiming rights in respect of the land in question, the said claim could not be entertained as it was open for him to approach the Civil Court to establish his rights. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner, after categorically recording a finding that the revenue records were not created as alleged, has persuaded himself to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Act. 5. It is submitted by the Special Government Counsel Sri Sampat Bapat that the Deputy Commissioner has not taken trouble to examine the original records and peruse the grant order before satisfying himself that the revenue entries were genuine. He further points out that if only a detailed enquiry had been held by the Deputy Commissioner, the truth regarding the nature of the entries made could have come to light. 6. This submission cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that right from the year 1978, the entries in the revenue records are standing in the name of Munivenkatappa, and after his death in the name of his widow Ramakka and subsequently in the name of Sri K. Nagaraj - respondent No. 3 herein. 6. This submission cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that right from the year 1978, the entries in the revenue records are standing in the name of Munivenkatappa, and after his death in the name of his widow Ramakka and subsequently in the name of Sri K. Nagaraj - respondent No. 3 herein. The Deputy Commissioner has bestowed his careful consideration to all the revenue records available and has come to the conclusion that there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the entries in the revenue records. If the records pertaining to grant of land were unavailable or if it was the case of the State that the records were created, then nothing prevented the State from making such investigation as was required to unearth such a racket and find out the officials who were involved in the same. No case is made out in this regard before the Deputy Commissioner, nor any such case is made out before this Court by producing the original grant register to show that without there being any grant, such spurious records had been created. 7. It is necessary to notice here that Munivenkatappa's name has been entered as grantee in the year 1978 and thereafter he and his wife Ramakka dealt with the property and certified mutation entries have been effected in the name of Ramakka, after the death of Munivenkatappa. Thereafter, entries are found in the name of Sri K. Nagaraj - respondent No. 3 herein, pursuant to the registered Sale Deed dated 06.03.2008. It is too late in the day for the State to find out whether the entries were; illegally made and hence deserved to be cancelled. The Deputy Commissioner has found from the records that there was no such illegality committed and therefore his interference in exercise of the revisional powers were not called for. Hence, I do not find any apparent illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner to warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.