Judgment : 1. In all these writ petitions, writ petitioners claim to be either original grantees of different extent of land in Sy. No.67 situated at Bhutanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk from the year 1960 onwards are persons who have purchased from the original grantees or as legal heirs have questioned the legality of the order dated 1.4.2010 which is common in the orders impugned in all these writ petitions, but in different cases passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, exercising his revisional jurisdiction under section 136[3] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short 'the Act']. 2. The subject matter of writ petition No.21943/2010 is an extent of 2 acres 10 guntas of land in Sy. No.67/P38 situated at Bhutanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk and the change of revenue entries in respect of this extent of land as per MR No.16/1996-97 and that ever since he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is the case of this writ petitioner that land was originally granted in favour of one Abbaiah in the year 1960 and that it had been purchased from his sons, namely, Anjanappa, Govinda and Krishna. 3. Writ petitioner had been issued with a show cause notice dated 10.11.2008 [copy at Annexure-D] by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, calling upon the petitioner as to why revenue entries should not be cancelled and made in favour of the Government, exercising his power under section 136[3] of the Act. Petitioner claims to have filed his objection by producing xerox copy of saguvali chit, but that was all rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and under the impugned order dated 1.4.2010, the Deputy Commissioner noticed that the subject land formed part of total extent of 410 acres 21 guntas in Sy. No.67 of Bhuthanahalli Village, was Government land classified as 'gomal' and that an extent of 156 acres 3 guntas had been disposed of as per the report of the Tahsildar. The proceedings had been initiated on the report of the Tahsildar and on complaint by forest department that the entire extent of 525 acres in Sy. No.67 of Bhoothanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk along with smaller extent in Sy. The proceedings had been initiated on the report of the Tahsildar and on complaint by forest department that the entire extent of 525 acres in Sy. No.67 of Bhoothanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk along with smaller extent in Sy. Nos.68, 69 and 70 and total extent of 539 acres 27 guntas of land had been declared as minor forest under the name of Bhuthanahalli Minor Forest in Anekal Taluk as per Government Notification No.G6416-Ft.27-33-35 Dated 17.3.1934 under section 35 of the Mysore Forest Regulations [XI of 1900] for the purpose of rules for the management of minor forests issued with Government Notification No.G- 12673-82-Ft.185-24-7 dated 11.4.1929 and this was the specific stand of the Forest Department and they petitioning the revenue department, action had been initiated as per the report of the Tahsildar by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction for change of revenue entries and for correction of the same. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the stand of the petitioner that it was a grant of the year 1960; that he is bonafide purchaser from the original grantee or his legal heirs; that no rights enured to such persons when the land is forest land; that the grant itself appears to be bogus grant as it was not supported by any supporting document from the revenue records and therefore rejected all contentions and directed the Tahsildar to change the revenue entries to bring it to the name of the Government and also directed the Tahsildar to ensure that subject land is preserved land as free from all encumbrances since it is a Government property. 4. It is aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition. 5. Likewise, the subject matter of writ petition Nos.19240-19243 of 2010 by four different persons, two of whom claim as heirs of original grantee i.e., petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 claiming either as Purchasers from the grantee or from the subsequent purchaser or from the purchaser of the original grantee in turn etc., are also different parcels of land in the very survey number 67 of Bhuthanahalli Village. 6. The extent of land claimed by these petitioners also varies and first petitioner claims extent of 4 acres 2 guntas in Sy. No.67/P47, second petitioner claims interest in the extent of 4 acres in Sy. 6. The extent of land claimed by these petitioners also varies and first petitioner claims extent of 4 acres 2 guntas in Sy. No.67/P47, second petitioner claims interest in the extent of 4 acres in Sy. No.67/P80, third petitioner claims interest in respect of extent of 2 acres 27 guntas in Sy. No.67/P13, fourth petitioner to the extent of 4 acres in Sy. No.67/P20. 7. All these petitioners had also been issued with show cause notice under similar circumstances of the even date 1.4.2010 and though the petitioners participated and tried to defend their title by producing documents and filing objections etc, it is the complaint of the petitioners that nothing has been considered by the Deputy Commissioner, but the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to pass orders mechanically in cyclostyle form and has rejected the claim of the petitioners. The operative portion of the order passed in the case of writ petitioners in the above five writ petitions are as under: In respect of Petitioner in WP No.21943/2010: "In the instant case, it is clear that the land in S.No.67 of Bhootanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk is declared as "Minor Forest" and it cannot be granted to anybody. Even if it is granted, it is abinitio void. And that therefore xerox copy of the Saguvali Chit produced by the Respondents cannot be taken cognizance of and the entries made by virtue of the same as well as by virtue of the sale deed are liable to be cancelled. Apart from all these, the Respondent is not in possession of the land in question. In the circumstances, the mutation accepted as per MR.No.16/96-97 in the name of the Respondent herein in respect of 2A.10gs., of land in S.No.67/P38 of Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk as well as the entries made in the RTCs by virtue of the said MR.No.16/96-97 are liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, they are cancelled. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal is directed to round off the name of the Respondent-Shri Tulasi Narayana Pradhan in respect of the land in S.No.67/P38 measuring 2A.10gs., situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk wherever it occurs in the revenue records and enter as 'Government' - Forest'. In furtherance, he is also directed to preserve the land in S.No.67/P38 measuring 2A.10gs., situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk free from all encumbrances since it is the Government property. In furtherance, he is also directed to preserve the land in S.No.67/P38 measuring 2A.10gs., situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk free from all encumbrances since it is the Government property. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal shall furnish compliance report expeditiously. Endorse the parties." In respect of first petitioner in WP Nos.19240-19243/2010: "In the instant case, it is clear that the land in S.No.67 of Bhootanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk is declared as "Minor Forest" and it cannot be granted to anybody. Even if it is granted, it is ab-initio void. Apart from this, in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the land in question has been granted in favour of the Respondent herein. In the circumstances, the entries made in the name of Shri Muniyappa s/o Venkataswamy and subsequently in the name of Shri Venkataswamy s/o Late Muniyappa, the Respondent herein as per MR.No.5/98-99 as well as the entries made in the Pahanis/RTCs., in his name in respect of 3A.32gs., of land in S.No.67/P47 of Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk are liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, they are cancelled. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal is directed to round off the name of the Respondent-Shri Muniyappa s/o Venkataswamy and subsequently the name of Shri Venkataswamy s/o Muniyappa in respect of the land in S.No.67/P47 measuring 3A.32gs., situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk wherever it occurs in the revenue records and enter as 'Government' - Forest'. In furtherance, he is also directed to preserve the land in S.No.67/P47 measuring 3A.32gs., situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk free from all encumbrances since it is the Government property. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal shall furnish compliance report expeditiously. Endorse the parties." In respect of second petitioner in WP Nos.19240-9243/2010: "In the circumstances, the entries made in the RTCs/Pahanis in respect of the land in S.No.67/P80 measuring 4A.00 situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk as well as the entries made in the name of the Respondent herein are liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, they are cancelled. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal is directed to round off the name of the Respondent-Shri Munihanumaiah, the Respondent herein in respect of the land in S.No.67/P80 measuring 4A.00 situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk wherever it occurs in the revenue records and enter as 'Government' - Forest'. Accordingly, they are cancelled. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal is directed to round off the name of the Respondent-Shri Munihanumaiah, the Respondent herein in respect of the land in S.No.67/P80 measuring 4A.00 situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk wherever it occurs in the revenue records and enter as 'Government' - Forest'. In furtherance, he is also directed to preserve the land in S.No.67/P80 measuring 4A.00 situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk free from all encumbrances since it is the Government property. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal shall furnish compliance report expeditiously. Endorse the parties." In respect of third petitioner in WP Nos.19240- 19243/2010: "In the circumstances, the entries made in the revenue records such as Pahanis/RTCs etc., in respect of the land in S.No.67/P13 measuring 2A.27gs., situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk are liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, they are cancelled. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal is directed to 'round off' the name of the Respondent-Shri Venkataswamy s/o Chikkathayappa the Respondent herein in respect of the land in S.No.67/P13 measuring 2A.27gs., situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk wherever it occurs in the revenue records and enter as 'Government' - Forest'. In furtherance, he is also directed to preserve the land in S.No.67/P13 measuring 2A.27gs., situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk free from all encumbrances since it is the Government property. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal shall furnish compliance report expeditiously. Endorse the parties." In respect of fourth petitioner in WP No.19240-19243/2010: "In the instant case, it is clear that the land in S.No.67 of Bhootanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk is declared as "Minor Forest" and it cannot be granted to anybody. Even if it is granted, it is abinitio void. In the instant case as already said the Respondents have not produced any such document under which the Government land classified as 'Gomal'-Forest' was acquired by the original vendor of the land in question. In such a circumstance, mere copies of the sale deeds under which the land has been alienated cannot be take cognizance of. Hence, the entries made by virtue of such sale deeds are liable to be cancelled. Apart from all these, the Respondent is not in possession of the land in question. Added to this the Forest Department has already initiated the proceedings and held that the land in question is Forest land. Hence, the entries made by virtue of such sale deeds are liable to be cancelled. Apart from all these, the Respondent is not in possession of the land in question. Added to this the Forest Department has already initiated the proceedings and held that the land in question is Forest land. In the circumstances, the mutation accepted as per MR.No.35/95-96 in the name of the Respondent herein viz., Kalaiah, Mariyappa, Ramaiah, Rama, Lakshmana, Rama s/o Thimmaiah and Mariyappa s/o Thimmaiah in respect of 4A.00 of land in S.No.67/P20 situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk as well as the entries made in the RTCs by virtue of the said mutation are liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, they are cancelled. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal is directed to 'round off' the names of the Respondents herein in respect of the land in S.No.67/P20 measuring 4A.00., situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk wherever it occurs in the revenue records and enter as 'Government' - Forest'. In furtherance, he is also directed to preserve the land in S.No.67/P20 measuring 4A.00,, situated at Bhootanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk free from all encumbrances since it is the Government property. The Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal shall furnish compliance report expeditiously. Endorse the parties." 8. Notice had been issued to the respondents – State and is represented by Smt. S. Susheela, learned Additional Government Advocate. 9. I have heard Sri. Viswanath Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ petition No.21943/2010 and Sri. Ashok K L, learned counsel for petitioners in writ petition Nos.19240-19243/2010. 10. Endorse the parties." 8. Notice had been issued to the respondents – State and is represented by Smt. S. Susheela, learned Additional Government Advocate. 9. I have heard Sri. Viswanath Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ petition No.21943/2010 and Sri. Ashok K L, learned counsel for petitioners in writ petition Nos.19240-19243/2010. 10. While writ petitioners have complained that no proper opportunity had been given; that no hearing at all was given; that the matter had been reserved for quite some time and suddenly it was pronounced; that the Deputy Commissioner has not applied his mind to the records placed by the petitioners; that mechanical order has come to be passed in cyclostyle form, learned Additional Government Advocate has asserted that the subject land was forming part of forest land that had been declared so way back in the year 1934; that the forest land belongs to the Government and Forest Department and the revenue authorities had no power or authority or jurisdiction to make grants of parts of this land assuming that there are any saguvali chit or grant, they are all not valid, but more importantly, as the Deputy Commissioner had noticed there was no supporting revenue records at all, the grants were bogus and therefore there is absolutely no need for interference by this court; that orders having been passed under section 136[3] of the Act by the competent authority, it is open to the petitioners to approach the civil court and get their rights determined under section 135 of the Act. 11. A perusal of the impugned order while does give an impression that it is a repetitive order in several cases, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner has acted without jurisdiction to the extent that revenue entries which is required to be corrected, if it has been corrected. In the first writ petition No.21943/2010, the matter is already before the civil court by the writ petitioner having filed original suit impleading the State by various Departments and it is also claimed that there was an order of status quo on the application seeking for temporary injunction in the suit and this is claimed in support of the possessory rights of the petitioners. 12. 12. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner also shows that certain directions beyond the powers conferred are issued for effecting correction of the revenue entries to the Tahsildar. While the Forest Department which had claimed ownership of this land, is entitled to protect its property if it is belonging to them, the Deputy Commissioner while in the exercise of powers under section 136[3] of the Act cannot go beyond his jurisdiction, namely, that the revenue entries alone should be corrected and not other coercive action followed for correction of the revenue entries. 13. In the circumstances, as it is not possible for this court to go into the merits of such contentions, particularly, to examine certain documents which the petitioners claim give them right to ownership etc., and on the other hand disputed by the respondent -State saying that it was forest land and therefore it should not be granted and no saguvali chit is to be issued and therefore without merit cannot be gone into at the same time it cannot be said that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner that it is only change of revenue entries and for correcting them is invalid and without jurisdiction. 14. In the circumstances, while the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 136[3] of the Act is left without being disturbed only to the extent of correcting the revenue entries, it is hereby made clear that action beyond this is not permitted. If the petitioners are aggrieved by mere change of revenue entries, it is open to them to seek suitable remedy as contemplated under section 135 of the Act and seek for necessary relief by impleading necessary parties. It is made clear that the present position to be maintained by the parties and no follow up action is permitted as a consequence of the order of the Deputy Commissioner except for changing of entries in the revenue records. 15. If the petitioners want further relief, it is open to them to approach the civil court. The action beyond the correction of revenue entries in the impugned order is held without jurisdiction, particularly, direction issued to the Tahsildar by the Deputy Commissioner for taking further action following change of revenue entries is without authority of law and therefore cannot be enforced in law. To this extent, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is quashed. The action beyond the correction of revenue entries in the impugned order is held without jurisdiction, particularly, direction issued to the Tahsildar by the Deputy Commissioner for taking further action following change of revenue entries is without authority of law and therefore cannot be enforced in law. To this extent, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is quashed. Rule issued and made absolute only to the limited extent of quashing the action beyond the correcting the changing of revenue entries. 16. However, it is made clear that the respondent – State and its officials functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 are at liberty to take such action as is permitted under the Act and Rules and as enabled independent of the present order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and liberty is reserved for such independent action as is warranted but only in accordance with law and also by giving opportunity to persons to be affected by such action. 17. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of.