JUDGMENT 1. Smt. M.C. Nagashree, the learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has called into question the first respondent Special Deputy Commissioner's order, dated 23.12.2009 (Annexure-A1) directing the deletion of the petitioner's name from the revenue records in respect of the land measuring 4 acres standing at Sy.No.74/346 of Bandikodgehalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Additional Taluk. It is further ordered that the land in question be shown as the government land. 3. Sri Sachin Kedilaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is the recorded owner of the land in question, he is not put on notice. He complains of the violation of the proviso to Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('the said Act' for short), which reads as follows: "136. Appeal and Revision.- (1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) The Deputy Commissioner may, on his own motion or on application of a party, call for and examine any records made under section 127 and Section 129 and pass such orders as he deems fit: Provided that no order shall be passed except after hearing the party who would be adversely affected by such order. 4. Sri Kedilaya would contend that just because the statute does not prescribe any time-frame for exercising the power, it does not mean that the power can be exercised any time; it has to be exercised within a reasonable time. He submits that the land was granted to the petitioner's vendor many decades ago. It is held to be bad after decades of years. 5. Smt. M.C. Nagashree, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the notice was affixed on the land in question as provided under Section 30 of the said Act. She submits that the impugned order is passed, as the petitioner has failed to turn up at the enquiry and produce the documents in support of the land-grant. 6. The proviso to Section 136(3) of the said Act states that no order shall be passed except after hearing the party who would be adversely affected by such order. In the instant case, it is not known why the notice is not sent to the petitioner by the usual mode of RPAD. 6. The proviso to Section 136(3) of the said Act states that no order shall be passed except after hearing the party who would be adversely affected by such order. In the instant case, it is not known why the notice is not sent to the petitioner by the usual mode of RPAD. The Court can not proceed on the statement of the respondents that the notice is affixed on the land, in the absence of the mahazar, which was required to be drawn up at the time of affixture of the notice. It does not even mention on what date it was affixed. 7. What is involved is a party's precious right in the immovable property. It is therefore necessary that the petitioner be given one more opportunity to show to the first respondent Special Deputy Commissioner that the land was lawfully granted to his vendor. 8. For yet another reason too, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The power under Section 136 of the said Act is exercisable only for correcting a revenue entry; the other things are to be examined independently and in appropriate proceedings. I may usefully refer to paragraph No.22 of this Court's decision in the case of KUNNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, reported in 2012 (1) Kar.L.J.28. "22. Such actions obviously go far beyond the scope of the power under Section 136(3) of the Act. While it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to go into the question of correctness or otherwise of the grant order, whether it is forged, fabricated or petitioners have overreached the provisions of law and if any revenue authority has been manipulated and orders brought about, they are all matters which could have been independently examined and corrective action taken under the appropriate enabling provision of law. For the present purpose, it is suffice to observe that Section 136(3) of the Act does not enable such actions to be taken purporting to exercise provisional jurisdiction for correction of a mere revenue entry." 9. Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 states that any grant of land made under this chapter shall be liable to be cancelled and the land resumed by the Assistant Commissioner, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representation or is contrary to the said rules. Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 states that any grant of land made under this chapter shall be liable to be cancelled and the land resumed by the Assistant Commissioner, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representation or is contrary to the said rules. The power of cancelling the land grant for the three enumerated reasons is conferred upon the Assistant Commissioner. 10. Even assuming that the land in question is a gomala land, the Special Deputy Commissioner cannot hold that the land-grant is illegal and the revenue entry is unauthorised. The power under Section 136(3) of the said Act is confined to undoing an entry, if there is no basis for the same. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned order. The first respondent Special Deputy Commissioner is directed to hold an enquiry in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to be present before the first respondent on 24th instant without waiting for any notice from the first respondent Special Deputy Commissioner. The first respondent shall dispose of the remanded matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within two months from 24.4.2013. 12. No order as to costs.