JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner - Mr. A.M. Mariswamy has filed this writ petition in this Court against the order passed by the Respondent - Joint Commissioner of BBMP, Bommanahalli Zone, Bengaluru under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, rejecting the Application of the petitioner for Khata entries in his favour. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged before the Court that out of the total grant of land in favour of the petitioner in Sy.No.74 of Agara village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring in all 11 Acres 30 Guntas way back in the year 1979, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired land measuring an extent of 06 Acres and 25½ Guntas in 1989-90, but the remaining land of 04 Acres and 32 Guntas remained with the petitioner and the petitioner approached the Respondent Authorities of the BBMP for recording Khata in his favour. 3. However, since it was recorded in favour of the private Respondent - Smt. Kenchamma W/o. Sri. B. Ramanuja and others, the Review Petition under Section 114- A was filed by the petitioner, but the Respondent - Joint Commissioner of BBMP without any material and discussion on the land acquired by the BDA to the extent of 6 Acres 30½ Guntas and without any evidence produced by the private Respondents, held that another land of 01 Acre and 29½ Guntas was acquired by the Government for formation of the 'Rural Housing Scheme' from the remaining land of the petitioner, which was not a fact on record nor any evidence was brought on record by the private Respondents and therefore the impugned order Annexure-L dated 19/11/2016 deserves to be set aside. 4. The relevant findings recorded by the Joint Commissioner, Bommanahalli Range, BBMP, Bangalore in the impugned order dated 19/11/2016 are quoted below for ready reference. "Examination and Consideration: The documents available in record, material evidence and contentions on behalf of both sides relating to the case have been examined in detail and considered. Firstly, there is no dispute with regard to acquisition of Title by the Petitioner in respect of 11 Acres 18 Guntas of land in Sy.No.74 of Agara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk by virtue of Occupancy Rights by the Land Tribunal. Firstly, there is no dispute with regard to acquisition of Title by the Petitioner in respect of 11 Acres 18 Guntas of land in Sy.No.74 of Agara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk by virtue of Occupancy Rights by the Land Tribunal. But, out of the said lands, in the said 11 Acres 30 Guntas, Land has been acquired by the Government for the Formation of Rural Housing Scheme to an extent of 1 Acre 29 ½ Guntas; sites were formed and they have been distributed to various persons through the Block Development Officers of the respective purviews in favour of beneficiaries during the year 1981 itself and khathas have been transferred in favour of the respective persons by the Agara Village Panchayath, Begur Hobli, accordingly. The said Village Panchayath was upgraded to Notified Area, later on as C.M.C. and at present under the purview of B.B.M.P. and accordingly, Khathas have been transferred in favour of respective persons. In the instant case, the Petitioner has questioned the sites of Respondents only, but has not whispered any thing about the khathas standing in favour of the remaining persons. At the first instances, in the detailed statement of the Petitioner, at each and every step, it has been contended that the Respondents have created bogus documents at each and every stage fright from Village Panchayath Stage - by playing fraud - and have got khatha of questioned properties; this Authority is vested with power to investigate with regard to bogus documents and to consider the same. Besides, if in case, there are violation of other Acts, this Authority is not vested with powers to verify the same and to consider the same. Besides all these, Khathas in respect of properties in question have been effected during the year 1981 itself through Panchayath, later on through Notified Area and C.M.C. and at present through B.B.M.P. and Property Tax has been fixed; periodically Khatha Transfer has been effected from the respective Local Bodies and the Respondents have been paying property taxes to the respective local bodies periodically, the questioning of khathas standing in favour of Respondents during the year 2015-16 after lapse of time of 36 years; is not within the justifiable time and there is no provision to review the same, after lapse of so much of time period. If in case, even if the respondents holds the khathas of properties in question on the basis of playing fraud and on the strength of created documents, this Authority is having no powers to consider its genuineness and eligibility after lapse of substantial period. Besides, without cancellation of khathas made on the basis of Registered Sale Deeds by the Competent Authorities, the khathas effected by the Revenue Authorities cannot be cancelled. In the instant case, the Petitioner has not questioned the Registered Sale Deeds before the Competent Authorities and they have not been cancelled by any Competent Court of Law or any other Authority. Besides, since the Respondents are in possession of the properties in question on the basis of the Hakku Patras issued by Competent Authorities and as per Registered Sale Deeds, the following:- ORDER For the factual aspects and reasons as explained above, it has been decided that the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable and hence the same is ordered to be dismissed. It is hereby directed that to continue the khathas in respect of questioned properties as it stands in favour of respective persons in the revenue documents and to maintain status quo. This order has been issued on this day, the 19th day of November, 2016. Sd/- Joint Commissioner Bommanahalli Range Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Bangalore." 5. None is present on behalf of the private Respondents though the name of Mr. M Ramachandra Reddy is shown in the cause list as appearing for private Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not discuss the relevant facts and evidence on record before arriving at the findings and rejecting the Review Petition under Section 114-A of the Act of the petitioner. Neither the fact of acquisition of 06 Acres and 25 ½ Guntas of land by the BDA out of the total land of 11 Acres 30 Guntas granted to the petitioner's predecessor in title in 1979 is discussed in the impugned order nor any evidence adduced by either party for reflecting the acquisition of 01 acre 29 ½ guntas for 'Rural Housing Scheme' has been discussed in the impugned order. 7. The impugned order therefore appears to be without any foundation. 7. The impugned order therefore appears to be without any foundation. However such apparent mistakes on record deserve to be brought to the notice of the Respondent - Joint Commissioner himself in the first instance and a quasi-Judicial Authority like the Joint Commissioner is expected in law to discuss the relevant facts and evidence before arriving at the conclusions and disposal of the petitions under Section 114-A of the Act. 8. Since the impugned order does not meet these basic requirements, the present writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order Annexure L dated 19/11/2016 is liable to be set aside with a direction to the Respondent - Joint Commissioner to re-decide the Review Petition of the petitioner under Section 114-A of the Act after discussing the relevant facts and the evidence on record. 9. The petitioner is therefore directed to file a Review Petition again before the said Authority within a period of 30 days along with the relevant evidence and after hearing both the parties again the said Joint Commissioner will pass fresh orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from today. 10. The Parties may appear before the Respondent Authority in the first instance on 05-03-2018 at 11:00 A.M. 11. With these observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.