Judgment : 1. Though the matter has come up for preliminary hearing 'B' Group, the matter is taken up for disposal, with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Sri. L. Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for petitioners submits that deficit court fee of Rs.400/- has been paid. 3. Registry to verify and accord suitable numbers to the writ petitions. 4. Writ petitioners are before this court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in RRT[1]CR.127/2007-08, RRT[1]CR.2/2007-08 [copy at Annexure-D] on issue of notice to the petitioners exercising his revisional jurisdiction under section 136[3] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short 'the Act'] and the consequential order passed pursuant to the notice. 5. Petitioners are aggrieved as under the impugned order, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, has directed that the entries made in the revenue records in respect of land in Sy. No.115 situated at Channasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, as against the first petitioner's name - an extent of 2 acres of land, as against second petitioner's name -an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas, as against third petitioner's name or her husband's name -an extent of 2 acres, as against fourth petitioner's name -an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land, as against fifth petitioner's name - an extent of 2 acres of land being entered in the revenue records, to change the entries by deleting the names of these petitioners and instead entering the name of the Government and also issuing further directions to the Tahsildar to take steps to safeguard the said land by evicting those who are claimed to be in possession of the same as the subject land is Government property etc. 6. Petitioners are all aggrieved by this order and have filed writ petitions for quashing of the same. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that no doubt land in Sy. 6. Petitioners are all aggrieved by this order and have filed writ petitions for quashing of the same. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that no doubt land in Sy. No.115 of Channasandra Village is Government land, but the petitioners or their predecessors in title have been in possession and cultivation of the subject land for the past either fifty to sixty years and the first petitioner in fact filed original suit in OS No.496/1992 before the civil court seeking for declaration and injunction against the BDO, Bangalore South Taluk, Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District and the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, who figured as Defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the suit and the first petitioner figured as fifth plaintiff in that suit; that the said suit had come to be decreed as prayed for on the basis of the claim that the petitioners had perfected their title against the Government by adverse possession and continuous enjoyment of the land in question for more than the prescribed period and in the wake of such developments, it was not open to the Special Deputy Commissioner second respondent to pass orders at variance with the civil court decree etc. 8. Likewise, second petitioner figured as third plaintiff in the very suit and the husband of the third petitioner figured as first plaintiff in the suit and fourth petitioner claims to have filed suit in OS No.686/2001 impleading the very parties and such suit also had been decreed against the defendants on the premise that the plaintiff therein had perfected title by way of adverse possession and fifth petitioner's husband by name Pullappa figured as fourth plaintiff in OS No.496/1992 and this suit having been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs therein and so also suit in OS No.686/2001 in favour of fourth petitioner and in respect of extent of land as indicated above, the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have passed orders and also could not have taken further steps to evict the writ petitioners etc., and on such premise have sought for quashing of the order. 9. Notice had been issued to the respondents represented by Smt. S. Susheela, learned Additional Government Advocate. 10. I have heard Sri. Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. S. Susheela, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State and its authorities. 11. 9. Notice had been issued to the respondents represented by Smt. S. Susheela, learned Additional Government Advocate. 10. I have heard Sri. Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. S. Susheela, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State and its authorities. 11. Though no statement of objections has been filed, it is pointed out that the subject land is a Government land and the person has no authority to stay on the Government land and as pointed out by the Special Deputy Commissioner, they had not even made an application seeking for regularization of unauthorized occupation and therefore they had no right, title and interest in the land etc. It is also submitted that the Special Deputy Commissioner has only performed his duty in safeguarding the Government land and therefore writ petitions should be dismissed. 12. It is noticed that the Special Deputy Commissioner had issued notice under section 136[3] of the Act. Invoking this provision, revenue entries if has been erroneously entered or made in the revenue records, it can be corrected, but not more. On the other hand, it is found that the Special Deputy Commissioner has not only travelled beyond jurisdiction of the provisions of section 136[3] of the Act, but also has commented upon the validity of the decree passed by the civil court and conduct which virtually amounts to bordering on contempt. 13. No doubt, the decree is an ex parte decree without contest. But, it was for them to have taken note of the same and to have taken steps to set it right than the Special Deputy Commissioner while exercising his powers revisional jurisdiction under the Act trying to comment upon it or to hold that it is invalid etc. 14. Even otherwise, exercising jurisdiction under section 136[3] of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner cannot travel beyond correcting the revenue entries and in the instant case, the Special Deputy Commissioner has also directed the Tahsildar to take steps for evicting the petitioners from the subject land. 15. An order of eviction can be no doubt resorted to if some unauthorized persons are in occupation of the Government lands and revenue land belonging to the State. It can only be done by following proper procedure and not on the guise of issuing notice for correction in the revenue records. 16. 15. An order of eviction can be no doubt resorted to if some unauthorized persons are in occupation of the Government lands and revenue land belonging to the State. It can only be done by following proper procedure and not on the guise of issuing notice for correction in the revenue records. 16. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Annexure-D is not sustainable. 17. Therefore, writ of certiorari is issued, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for taking action if need be and within the limits of the jurisdiction under section 136[3] of the Act and showing deference to the Judgment and decree passed by the civil court, in favour of the writ petitioners and if so and against the respondent State. 18. It is open to the petitioners to produce such material as are available with them before the Special Deputy Commissioner in such proceedings. 19. Writ petitions are allowed. Rule issued and made absolute.