ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. 10 acres and 9 guntas of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 90 and 91 of Kolavanahalli Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikballapur Taluk is subject-matter of this proceeding. One Malige Byrappa and members of his family claim to be the owners of the aforesaid lands. The son of Malige Byrappa is said to have conveyed, for a valuable consideration, the aforesaid lands under a sale deed dated 4-10-1979 in favour of petitioner and put him in possession of the said property. Malige Byrappa is said to have instituted O.S. No. 81 of 1980, before the Munsiff at Chikballapur for a declaration that the sale deed is null and void and for a declaration of his title to the said property. During pendency of the suit in the year 1982, he was reported to have died, whence, respondents 3 to 6 claiming to be daughters and legatees under a Will of the deceased were permitted to come on record and prosecute the suit as legal representatives. That suit when dismissed by judgment and decree dated 18-12-1992 was affirmed by order dated 9-8-1994 of the Appellate Court in R.A. No. 6 of 1993 instituted by respondents 3 to 6. The orders of the lower Appellate Court and that of the Trial Court were confirmed by the dismissal of R.S.A. No. 379 of 1996 by order dated 26-2-2001 of this Court, whence, the right, title and interest over the property in question was conclusively held in favour of vendor of petitioner while denying such a right in the father of vendor of petitioner by name Malige Byrappa. In other words, it was established Malige Byrappa was not entitled to a declaration of title to the said property. Respondents 3 to 6 by suppressing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 81 of 1980, R.A. No. 6 of 1993 and R.S.A. No. 379 of 1996 filed an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Assistant Commissioner without arraigning petitioner as a party respondent, asserting to have acquired right, title and interest over the property in question as legatees under the Will of the deceased Malige Byrappa. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 9-1-2006 accepting the Will and as legatees, is said to have allowed the appeal and directed recording the name of respondents 3 to 6 in the revenue records. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 9-1-2006 accepting the Will and as legatees, is said to have allowed the appeal and directed recording the name of respondents 3 to 6 in the revenue records. 2. On 6-3-2006, respondents 3 to 6, without disclosing the claim of petitioner, allegedly, executed and lodged for registration a sale deed conveying the said property for valuable consideration in favour of respondents 8 and 9. Even before the names of respondents 8 and 9 could be recorded in the revenue records, petitioner is said to have filed a revision petition under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act, before the Deputy Commissioner, who, by order dated 9-4-2010, dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner without recording a finding over suppression of material facts of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 81 of 1980, R.A. No. 6 of 1993 and R.S.A. No. 379 of 1996. 3. In the meanwhile, petitioner instituted, O.S. No. 170 of 2006 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikkaballapur for injunctory reliefs arraigning respondents 8 and 9 as defendants. So also, respondents 8 and 9 instituted O.S. No. 416 of 2007 arraigning petitioner as defendant for declaration of title and that the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 81 of 1980 was obtained by playing a fraud. In addition, one Smt. Swathi, D/o. of Lakshmamma, another daughter of Malige Byrappa is said to have instituted O.S. No. 191 of 2009, before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikkaballapur, for partition and separate possession of the aforesaid immovable property. 4. The order dated 9-1-2006 of the Assistant Commissioner, without arraigning the petitioner as party respondent, in a proceeding under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act, instituted by respondents 3 to 6, who suffered a judgment and decree, supra, is illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and has occasioned miscarriage of justice. 4. The order dated 9-1-2006 of the Assistant Commissioner, without arraigning the petitioner as party respondent, in a proceeding under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act, instituted by respondents 3 to 6, who suffered a judgment and decree, supra, is illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and has occasioned miscarriage of justice. The very fact that respondents 3 to 6 suppressed material facts over the judgment and decree dated 18-12-1992 dismissing O.S. No. 81 of 1980 instituted by their father and on his death as legatee under his Will, hence permitted to prosecute the suit as his legal representatives, so also, the judgment and decree dated 9-8-1984 dismissing R.A. No. 6 of 1993, and the judgment and decree of this Court dated 26-2-2001 dismissing R.S.A. No. 397 of 1996, thus affirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 81 of 1980, when not brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner, the order dated 9-1-2006, cannot but be said to be nullity. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner, though informed in the revision petition, of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, and that of this Court in a regular second appeal, nevertheless, did not even refer to the same, much less, record a finding over its acceptance or rejection. Order dated 9-4-2010 of the Deputy Commissioner has occasioned grave miscarriage of justice. This also indicates as to the nature of business carried on by the Deputy Commissioner, while exercising quasi-judicial power of revision under the Act. 5. Miscarriage of justice is a serious concern, since quasi-judicial authorities invested with jurisdiction of revision and appeal must be held answerable to the citizens. Absence of aptitude or skills of judgment writing as well as adjudication in such proceedings, demonstrates that incompetent persons are permitted to occupy posts of authority, leading to orders which are unsustainable, ex facie. Therefore, good governance requires appointing persons of caliber, aptitude and competence to such posts. 6. O.S. No. 170 of 2006 instituted by the petitioner is only to protect his possessory rights by arraigning respondents 8 and 9 as party defendants who threatened the said possession, and therefore, is of no consequence as regards recording the name of petitioners in the revenue records in respect of land in question. 7. 6. O.S. No. 170 of 2006 instituted by the petitioner is only to protect his possessory rights by arraigning respondents 8 and 9 as party defendants who threatened the said possession, and therefore, is of no consequence as regards recording the name of petitioners in the revenue records in respect of land in question. 7. Learned Counsel for respondents 8 and 9, is correct in his submission that O.S. No. 416 of 2007, is for declaration that the judgment and decree dismissing O.S. No. 81 of 1980, instituted by respondents 3 to 6 is by playing a fraud, although have suffered judgment and decree in O.S. No. 81 of 1980 as well as R.A. No. 6 of 1993 and R.S.A. No. 379 of 1996. If that is so then too would not come in the way of recording the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of property in question, in the absence of final adjudication in O.S. No. 416 of 2007. 8. Although learned Counsel for petitioner would make a faint submission that O.S. No. 416 of 2007 is for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 18-12-1992 in O.S. No. 81 of 1980 is a nullity on the basis of fraud played on the Munsiff of Chikkaballapur, it is for the petitioner to point out, as a defendant, in O.S. No. 416 of 2007 for such a relief is unavailable to respondents 8 and 9 the plaintiff therein since respondents 3 to 6 suffered the judgment and decree as affirmed by the Appellate Courts and attained finality over factum of Mallige Byrappa having no right, title and interest over the property in question. 9. O.S. No. 191 of 2009 is said to be instituted by one Swathi D/o. of Lakshmamma allegedly daughter of Malige Byrappa for partition and separate possession of the property in question. That Swathi is not before Court and therefore, the suit would not come in the way of the name of the petitioner recorded in the revenue records in respect of land in question. 10. According to learned Counsel for petitioner, O.S. No. 191 of 2009 in which he is arraigned as party defendant, was dismissed on 22-6-2011, pursuant to which Miscellaneous No. 8 of 2011 is filed is pending consideration. 11. 10. According to learned Counsel for petitioner, O.S. No. 191 of 2009 in which he is arraigned as party defendant, was dismissed on 22-6-2011, pursuant to which Miscellaneous No. 8 of 2011 is filed is pending consideration. 11. In the aforesaid facts what emanates is that the Assistant Commissioner having noticed the claim of respondents 3 to 6 as legatees under a Will of their father Malige Byrappa, over which right, he could not have adjudicated upon, in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in C.N. Nagendra Singh v. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and Others, 2002 (6) Kar.L.J. 391 (FB), ILR 2002 Kar. 2750 (FB), recording a finding that when the Revenue Court is prevented from recording the statements of the parties and the depositions, the question of establishing the genuineness of the Will does not arise, and the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to go into the genuineness of the will or questions of title, nevertheless, unmindful of declaration of law, passed the order dated 9-1-2006 to record the names of respondents 3 to 6. It is therefore, the Assistant Commissioner who will have to bear the costs of the proceeding. 12. The Deputy Commissioner as noticed supra, having failed to apply his mind over allegation of suppression of relevant facts, by respondents 3 to 6 though advanced by the petitioner in the revision petition, is also liable to pay costs of this proceeding. 13. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order dated 9-1-2006 of the Assistant Commissioner is quashed and the appeal dismissed. Sequentially, the order dated 9-4-2010 of the Deputy Commissioner in revision is quashed and the revision petition is allowed, entitling the petitioner to have his name restored forthwith in the revenue records in respect of land in question. In the circumstances, cost is quantified at Rs. 50,000/- payable by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner jointly, although, the State Government is directed to first pay the cost to the petitioner and recover the same from the said two officers.