ORDER : Petitioner herein who is the wife of Vaddara Thimmaiah is impugning the order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Sub-Division in proceedings bearing No.R.A.(Gov)198/2007-08 which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura in proceedings bearing R.A.No.10/2009-10 vide order dated 27.01.2010. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under: The land bearing old Sy.No.7 new Sy.No.70 of Godda Avalahalli, Hosur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk totally measured to an extent of 10 acres 07 guntas. It is stated that out of that, 5 acres 07 guntas was granted in favour of the petitioner’s husband i.e., Vaddara Thimmaiah on 08.12.1954. Further, another extent of 4 acres in the said land is said to be granted in favour of another person by name Ramaiah @ Thimmaiah and these two extents are given separate survey number as Sy.No.70 and Sy.No.70/1. It is seen that subsequent to grant of 5 acres 07 guntas in favour of Vaddara Thimmaiah in the year 1954, he is said to have sold aforesaid extent of land in favour of N.Ramaraju under registered sale deed dated 26.05.1995. In turn, N.Ramaraju is said to have sold aforesaid extent to respondent No.4B.R.Murthy under registered sale deed dated 02.12.2005. 3. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner herein has approached the Authority as legal heir of Vaddara Thimmaiah and sought for change of Katha of said land in her name by initiating inheritance proceedings. Accordingly, the Khatha is registered in her name in respect of aforesaid extent of land which was subject matter of challenge by respondent No.4 before the Assistant Commissioner, Chickaballapura under proceedings No.R.A.(Gov)198/2007-08 wherein, the Assistant Commissioner after giving careful consideration observed that the land which was granted in favour of petitioner’s husband was under Sy.No.7 subsequently, after Dhurasti being conducted, the same is given new number as Sy.No.70 and in that view of the matter, the order passed in mutation MR.No.5/06-07 in the name of Channamma-petitioner herein is erroneous and accordingly, he set aside the same. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.10/2009-10 by its order dated 27.01.2010 which is sought to be challenged in this petition by the petitioner. 4. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.10/2009-10 by its order dated 27.01.2010 which is sought to be challenged in this petition by the petitioner. 4. In the meanwhile, it is also seen that respondent No.4 herein has approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.330/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Chikkaballapura for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 5. When the entire records are looked into, the same discloses the dishonest intention of the petitioner herein in trying to take away the right of respondent No.4 who has purchased the property for valuable consideration from the erstwhile owner i.e., petitioner’s husband Vaddara Thimmaiah. Therefore, this act of the petitioner has not only created problem to respondent No.4 who is the legitimate purchaser of the said property but also burdening the Civil Court in necessitating respondent No.4 to institute the suit for declaration and also proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner as well as this Court. Therefore, while dismissing this unrighteous litigation, appropriate cost is required to be imposed for abusing the process of law. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed while doing so, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner herein shall pay cost of Rs.50,000/payable to the Registry of this Court within three months from today, failing which, the petitioner shall be sent to Civil Prison until the cost is recovered. From out of the cost of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to contesting respondent No.4 and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be appropriated to Registry of this Court.