ORDER : Petitioners are aggrieved by the mutation entries at Annexure-T whereby the land under their ownership is changed over to the name of Government of Karnataka. 2. The fact is, petitioners are the original owners of land in Sy.Nos.312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 329, 330, 332 and 333 of Kodambal village in Humanabad Taluka of Bidar District. The father of 7th respondent (now represented by his legal heirs) viz., Tammanna filed Form No.7 and claimed occupancy rights in respect of the above lands. The said application was rejected by the concerned Tribunal on 30.03.1976. Said Tammanna aggrieved by the said order preferred a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.29862/1981 and the said writ petition came to be allowed thereby remanding the case to the Tribunal. The petitioners/landlords challenged the order of writ petition in Writ Appeal No.1416/1984. In the meantime, the 7th respondent though his father was alive filed an application before Deputy Commissioner (third respondent) for modification of the entries in the Tenancy Register, thus, sought for entering his name instead of name of his father. However, his prayer was rejected. The fifth respondent/ Tahasildar made modification/alteration in the Tenancy Register. In the meanwhile, writ petitioners herein filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Deputy Commissioner, Tahasildar and Tammanna in O.S.No.121/1984 on the file of Munsiff Court at Humnabad. The suit was not contested by Tammanna. In fact, the Tribunal had recorded the statement of Tammanna whereby he has stated that he is not the tenant of the lands in question. The Tahsildar contested the suit. In the meanwhile, Tammanna expired. The writ appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded. By that time, the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority was constituted and the matter was remanded to the said authority for adjudication. The said authority dismissed the appeal on 20.7.1987 as the appeal against Tammanna on his death was abated. Thus, the claim of tenancy of Tammanna reached finality. The suit in O.S.No.121/1984 came to be decreed on 21.04.1990 by imposing cost of Rs.500/-on the Tahsildar. The said judgment was challenged by the Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar in R.A.No.9/1993. The said appeal was allowed under the impression that the tenancy matter was still pending, thus, suit of the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment of the Appellate Court. The said judgment is challenged before this Court in R.S.A.No.116/2008, which is still pending. The said judgment was challenged by the Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar in R.A.No.9/1993. The said appeal was allowed under the impression that the tenancy matter was still pending, thus, suit of the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment of the Appellate Court. The said judgment is challenged before this Court in R.S.A.No.116/2008, which is still pending. On 26.03.2008, the seventh respondent filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner to enter in the Record of Rights the name of ‘Government of Karnataka’ in ‘owner’s column’ and his name in ‘cultivator’s column’, by referring to the judgment of R.A.No.9/1993. He filed a complaint before the Lokayukta, Bidar, for not acting upon his application by changing the entries. The complaint was transmitted from the office of Upa Lokayukta to the Assistant Commissioner/fourth respondent and Tahasildar/fifth respondent. The Tahsildar appears to have misread the communication letter and directed to enter the name as sought in the complaint of respondent No.7. Accordingly, on 10.08.2009, the petitioners’ names were deleted from the revenue records and the names of ‘Government of Karnataka’ in Khatedar’s column, ‘Shamsunder’ and ‘Vijaykumar’/respondent Nos.7 and 8 at cultivator’s column were entered, which is under challenge in these Writ Petitions. 3. As could be seen from the Annexures-M, R, S and V, there was no proceedings under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to change the entries and there was no order by any Court having jurisdiction to hold that the petitioners are not the owners of the land in question. To the knowledge of respondents, the tenancy proceedings came to be concluded before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority as abated against Tammanna, the father of respondent Nos.7 and 8 and said proceedings have become final. 4. In that view of the matter, the change of entries in Annexure-T is without any authority and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the earlier entries as existed prior to 22.07.2009 shall be restored subject to the final result of R.S.A.No.116/2008. With this observation, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of.