ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 17-5-2010 impugned at Annexure-J to the petition. The petitioner contends that the land bearing Sy. No. 387/A measuring 13 acres 39 guntas situate at Bagdal Village, Bidar Taluk was a Inam land governed by the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 ('the Act' for short). The father of the petitioners being the Inamdar had applied for grant of occupancy right under the provisions of the said Act. The Special Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 20-8-1962 granted occupancy right to the father of the petitioners. Pursuant to such order, the petitioners' father has secured the revenue entries. Subsequently when the petitioners sought change of revenue entries by way of inheritance, the third respondent herein raised an objection with regard to the same by contending that an application had been filed before the Land Tribunal by him seeking occupancy rights in respect of the property. 2. The fact that the application filed by the third respondent before the Land Tribunal was rejected by the order dated 16-1-1977 is not in dispute. Against the said order, the third respondent had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 19928 of 1980 which was dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution on 16-12-1981. In that light, the petitioners contend that the third respondent has no right whatsoever in respect of the property to which the father of the petitioners was declared as the Inamdar and the regrant was made. Accordingly, the original authority had passed the order mutating the properties in the name of the petitioners herein. The third respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 26-2-2007 passed by the original authority viz., the Tahsildar had filed a revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar. The Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 17-5-2010 directed that the name of the father of the third respondent be restored in column 12(2) of the RTC extracts since he claims to be tenant in respect of the said property. The petitioners herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this Court. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the impugned order. The petitioners herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this Court. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the impugned order. A perusal of the same would disclose that the Deputy Commissioner no doubt has taken into consideration the fact that the Land Tribunal by the order dated 16-1-1977 had rejected the claim of the father of the third respondent herein. However, the Tahsildar was directed to reconsider the mutation order which had been passed after ascertaining as to whether the father of the third respondent had filed any application before the Deputy Commissioner under the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, if such order had been passed, it was for the third respondent herein to produce the same before the Deputy Commissioner or at least before this Court. 4. If that be the position, the reconsideration by the Tahsildar only for the said purpose as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner would not be justified. That apart if such reconsideration to that extent was required and before the Deputy Commissioner when such order if any passed under the Act had not been produced at that stage, there was no justification for the Deputy Commissioner to direct the inclusion of the name of the father of the third respondent in column 12(2) of the RTC. 5. Having arrived at the above conclusion, what is also to be noticed is that the order of the Deputy Commissioner refers to a suit filed by the third respondent in O.S. No. 46 of 2005. In the said suit, the third respondent had compromised the matter before the Lok Adalat. The petitioners herein claiming to be aggrieved by such collusive compromise had filed a petition in W.P. No. 2801 of 2007. This Court by the order dated 8-9-2008 had set aside the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 46 of 2005 and had remitted the matter to the Court below for reconsideration of the suit on merits after permitting the petitioners herein to be impleaded in the said suit. This Court by the order dated 8-9-2008 had set aside the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 46 of 2005 and had remitted the matter to the Court below for reconsideration of the suit on merits after permitting the petitioners herein to be impleaded in the said suit. Therefore, if at all the third respondent has any right having been granted occupancy under any of the enactments, such right would have to be established by the third respondent before the Civil Court in the said suit where the petitioners herein also would have an opportunity to defend the same. It is only if the third respondent succeeds in the suit in securing any declaration, the third respondent can thereafter approach the Tahsildar based on the judgment and decree, if any in the civil proceedings. Therefore, taking note of all these circumstances, the third respondent is required to establish a right before securing the revenue entry. The Deputy Commissioner was not justified in passing the order dated 17-5-2010 to delete the name of the petitioners from column 12(2) of the RTC and incorporate the name of the father of the third respondent. In that view, the order dated 17-5-2010 impugned at Annexure-J is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the third respondent to approach the Revenue Authorities relating to the mutation entries, if the third respondent succeeds in obtaining any decree from the Civil Court. The petition is accordingly disposed of.