ORDER : These petitions are filed by Giriyappa claiming himself to be the husband of Govindamma and another Janardhan claiming that 4 acres of land each in Sy.No.6/P/1 of Sasavegera village was regularized in the name of Govindamma and Janardhan considering their unauthorized cultivation of aforesaid land for long time and also on the basis of the applications, which were filed by each of them in that behalf. 2. The petitioners would submit that they are aggrieved by the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 04.09.2009 vide order No. Rev./Bhoomi/35/2009-10 in cancelling the regularization of land in their favour under Rule 108(K) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, on the premise that there is fraud in securing the regularisation of said land in the name of Govindamma and Janardhan. 3. When this matter had come up before this Court on 17.07.2018 this Court directed learned High Court Government Pleader to secure the original records with reference to regularization of alleged unauthorized cultivation of Govindamma and Janardhan to an extent of 4 acres each in land bearing Sy.No.6/P/1 of Sasivegera village, Devadurga taluka, Raichur district. The original record, which is placed before this Court, would indicate that two applications are filed by the 1st petitioner’s wife Govindamma and the 2nd petitioner4 Janardhan. The said applications do not bear any date on which they are submitted. As contemplated under Section 94-A(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the persons who are in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of land should make an application within six months from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1990, which has come into force on 14.04.1990. 4. However, the applications which are seen in the original records, do not discloses the date as to when the said applications were filed. The column which is mentioned for it, is kept blank in the applications. The relevant provision of Section 94-A(4) of the Act would also indicate that an application shall be filed along with such fees as prescribed under the Act. In the original file there is no reference to any amount being paid towards fee. When learned counsel for the petitioners is called upon to submit regarding the amount of money which is paid by way of fees along with application filed seeking regularization, he would submit that there is no such receipt available with petitioners. In the original file there is no reference to any amount being paid towards fee. When learned counsel for the petitioners is called upon to submit regarding the amount of money which is paid by way of fees along with application filed seeking regularization, he would submit that there is no such receipt available with petitioners. Thereby confirming that there is no such payment made by them. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also place before this Court that the Register maintained in the office of the Tahsildar, Devadurga, where the applications received seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation is registered. In the said Register in accordance with seniority of the date, the application received and also the amount of fee, which is paid along with application, is entered. According to learned High Court Government Pleader there is no reference to applications of Govindamma and Janardhan registered in the said Register and there is no reference of any fees being paid by them. 5. In this background, what is seen is the petitioners are given occupancy certificate in form No.7, copy of that is produced at Annexures-A and B in proceedings No.LND/NCR/2003-04/31, 32 which would indicate that the same is issued under Rule 19 of the Land Revenue Rules. When Annexures-A and B to the writ petition is compared to the originals, which is produced before this Court, which would indicate that form No.7 is issued to them on 06.01.2004, whereas the original which is available in the record would indicate that the same is issued on 06.02.2004. Though it was initially shown as 06.01.2004, subsequently corrected both at the top of Form No.7 as well as bottom where there is place for signature of the Tahsildar of Devadurga, the same is shown as 06.02.2004, thereby indicating that Annexures which are produced along with writ petition are not genuine documents. It is seen that it is corrected in the original. The said correction is not seen in the copy, which is produced by the petitioners before this Court. 6. When this matter was heard further, it is seen that the grievance of the petitioners is that the land which was regularized in their favour was in their possession and cultivation and they were cultivating ground nut and sajje as indicated in RTC which is produced. With reference to possession and cultivation of said lands there are two reports in the records. With reference to possession and cultivation of said lands there are two reports in the records. Wherein the report dated 19.05.2009 is concerned, it would indicate that the application of Govindamma and Janardhan is inserted in the file without the approval from the Tahsildar and the same is not included in the Register by the Tahsildar. It is also seen that some people with vested interest has directly placed it before the Committee constituted for Akram-Sakram Scheme for regularization. That there is no indication of any cultivation being done on the said land at any point of time. In support of that photographs of the land is also taken and kept in the original record, which would indicate that entire land is not under cultivation at any point of time. The report would also indicate that the entire proceedings which is culminated in recognizing the right of the petitioners for grant is stage managed and done behind the back of the Tahsildar without getting the said application registered in the record maintained in the office. It is based on this report, the order dated 04.09.2009 is passed by the Assistant Commissioner in cancelling the grant vide order No.Rev./Bhoomi/35/2009-10 dated 04.09.2009, which was subject matter of challenge before the Deputy Commissioner in Rev./Apl/33/2009-10 came to be allowed and remanded back for re-consideration the order dated 10.07.2013. 7. It is seen that thereafter again there is one more report by another Tahsildar dated 28.07.2015 where another Tahsildar would state that the land is under cultivation and the same is cultivated by the husband of Govindamma and Janardhan, which is contrary to the earlier report of the record which is seen in the form of photographs and other records. So far as observation made in the report of Tahsildar dated 19.05.2009 regarding the application being falsely inserted in the records and the same not being approved by the Tahsildar clandestinely placed before the Committee of Akram-Sakram is completely ignored by the Tahsildar while submitted his report on 28.07.2015 which is at Annexure-E. 8. That report of Tahsildar dated 28.07.2015, which is at Annexure-E to the writ petition is not seen in the original file. That report of Tahsildar dated 28.07.2015, which is at Annexure-E to the writ petition is not seen in the original file. However, there is reference of that letter in the proceedings of Assistant Commissioner dated 17.08.2015 in holding that the entire Sy.No.6 is full of boulders, stones and it was never fit for cultivation and the same was not under cultivation of anybody. Therefore, the earlier order of Assistant Commissioner dated 04.09.2009 in proceedings No. Rev./Bhoomi/35/2009-10 appears to be just and proper and cannot be interfered particularly in the fact that the documents which are relied upon by the petitioners are tampered and does not tally with the original records in the file maintained in the office of the Revenue department and there being no reference to application being filed in the manner prescribed under Section 94-A(4) of the Act and there being no reference of fees being paid, the said application being inserted in the records of office of the Tahsildar and the same was placed before the Committee of Akram-Sakram. 9. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.20,000/- on each of the petitioner, which is payable to the Registry within three months from this day, failing which, the Registry shall take necessary steps to arrest and send them to civil prison till such time the said punitive cost is deposited by them.