ORDER : I. Facts of the case:- (i) The petitioners in most of these cases claim to be the owners and in possession of properties and trace their title from the Maharaja of Mysore. The petitioners rely on sale deeds, consequent entries in the records of the Mysore City Municipal Corporation amongst other records to evidence their title, possession and enjoyment. It is only in W.P.No.25592/2015, the Royal Family themselves are before this Court challenging the action of Deputy Commissioner. (ii) Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RRT Nos.540/2014-2015, 541/2014-2015 and 542/2014- 2015 whereby it has been held that the lands in which the petitioners claim interest and rights were originally ‘B Kharab’ i.e. Government lands reserved for public purpose, and accordingly consequential directions were issued to the Tahsildar to cancel the Kathas, i.e. mutation entries standing in the name of the petitioners. (iii) It is stated that the Governor General of India had accepted the offer of Sri Jayachamarajendra Wode yar, the Maharaja of Mysore to accede to the Indian Dominion on 16.08.1947 as per the Instrument of Accession (Annexure-U in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015). Pursuant to the Instrument of Accession, an agreement was entered into on 23.01.1950 between the Governor General of India and the Maharaja of Mysore (Annexure V1 in W.P.No.25462-25497/2015). As per Article II (2) of the agreement, the Maharaja of Mysore was required to furnish to the Government of India an inventory of all moveable and immovable properties, which would be held by him as private property. (iv) As per the list of immovable properties that was submitted (Annexure-W in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015) the whole of Kurubarahalli Village in Survey No.4, measuring 1563 acres 31 guntas, including tank bed area with an exception of Survey Nos.1, 2 and 3; property in Survey No.41 of Aalanahalli Village measuring 178 acres 32 guntas, and property in Survey No.39 of Chowdahalli Village measuring 259 acres 27 guntas, were described as private properties held by the Maharaja of Mysore as on 26.01.1950. (v) The said list of properties referred to above having been furnished to the Government of India, the same came to be acknowledged and accepted by the Government of India in terms of Article II of the agreement, to be the private property belonging to the Maharaja of Mysore (Annexure-V in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015). (v) The said list of properties referred to above having been furnished to the Government of India, the same came to be acknowledged and accepted by the Government of India in terms of Article II of the agreement, to be the private property belonging to the Maharaja of Mysore (Annexure-V in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015). (vi) Subsequently it appears that while the Maharaja of Mysore has retained some of the lands, the remaining portions of land came to be alienated eventually coming into the possession of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that many of the properties that have been sold by the Maharaja of Mysore has been the subject matter of real estate development, and Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) had approved the development plans and Mysore City Corporation had approved plans for construction, and Katha entries had also been effected by Mysore City Corporation as well as the revenue authorities in the names of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners and subsequently the petitioners. (vii) It is stated that the Government having been appraised of the necessity of removal of the entry of ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue and survey records of the lands which are subject matter of the present dispute had directed the Authorities to initiate necessary proceedings in that regard. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner conducted an enquiry under Sections 67(2) and 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘K.L.R. Act’ for brevity) and arrived at the conclusion vide the order dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure-AJ in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015) that the aforementioned lands were not ‘Government lands’ and had directed dropping of further proceedings – relating to the enquiry under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act. Consequently there was an order to set aside the entries treating the land as “Government B Kharab” as found in Column No.11 of the RTC pertaining to the lands of the petitioners. (viii) It is stated that the very same Deputy Commissioner had subsequently cancelled the earlier order dated 20.06.2012 pursuant to the direction of the Government dated 18.08.2012 contained in the letter addressed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-AK in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015). In fact, the said letter contains reference to an endorsement of the Deputy Chief Minister on the representation of the Member of Legislative Council directing holding of an enquiry under Section 25 of the K.L.R. Act. In fact, the said letter contains reference to an endorsement of the Deputy Chief Minister on the representation of the Member of Legislative Council directing holding of an enquiry under Section 25 of the K.L.R. Act. (ix) Said order of the Deputy Commissioner was assailed in W.P. Nos.47983-47984/2012 and connected matters, wherein this Court by order dated 12.12.2012 while setting aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, disposed off the writ petitions observing as follows: “7…If the respondent No.2 proposes to withdraw or vary the order, dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure-G), the respondent No.2 has to issue the notice to the petitioners and hear them and then take a decision in the matter.” (x) Consequent upon such direction, fresh proceedings came to be initiated and the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 came to be passed reconsidering the earlier order dated 20.06.2012 while holding that the lands in the aforesaid survey numbers of Kurubarahalli, Aalanahalli and Chowdahalli were originally ‘B Kharab’ lands reserved for public purpose, with a consequential direction to the Tahsildar to cancel the Katha entries standing in the names of the petitioners. It is these orders of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 passed in R.R.T.Nos.540/2014-2015, 541/2014-2015 and 542/2014-2015 that have been challenged in the present proceedings. II. Contentions of petitioners:- (A) Sri B.V.Acharya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C.K.Venkatesh for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.25592/2015 has submitted as follows:- (i) That the order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner at the first instance could not have been recalled and fresh orders as impugned herein be passed, which would in effect result in review of the earlier order and such power could not be claimed to inhere unless it was specifically conferred under the statute and in the present case, the K.L.R. Act does not confer such power. (ii) That the proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the K.L.R. Act does not permit enquiry where title is vested in a private individual. In such a case, the appropriate remedy would be to file a suit before the Civil Court. (iii) That the order of the Deputy Commissioner being one without jurisdiction, the court could entertain the writ petition directly without relegating the parties to the alternative remedy provided for under the relevant statute. (B) Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Sriranga. (iii) That the order of the Deputy Commissioner being one without jurisdiction, the court could entertain the writ petition directly without relegating the parties to the alternative remedy provided for under the relevant statute. (B) Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Sriranga. S for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.28082-28085/2015 and 28853/2015 has submitted as follows.- (i) As the dispute relates to the assertion that the properties are the private properties of the Maharaja of Mysore in terms of the Instrument of Accession and agreement, Article 363 of the Constitution of India creates a bar to enquire into the disputes arising from such agreement. The remedy as against the impugned orders must be worked out as specified under Article II(3) of the agreement by way of arbitration. (ii) As the sale deeds were executed long back and consequent mutation entries effected, the right to proceed against any person relying on such document or revenue entry stands extinguished as per Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by inaction to initiate proceedings within the time prescribed under law. Alternatively, it was contended that the power conferred on the Authority under a statute must be exercised within a reasonable period of time, unlike as in the present case where proceedings have been initiated after several decades of unreasonable lapse of time. (C) Sri G.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. Aparna. N for petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.26814-26815/2015, 26816/2015, 27488-27492/2015 & 27494-27495/2015, 28456/2015 has submitted as follows:- (i) The impugned order passed pursuant to the direction of the Government dated 18.08.2012 was an order passed under dictation and must be set aside on this ground alone. Learned Senior Counsel has reiterated the submissions made by the other learned Senior Advocates. (D) Sri Dharmesh. A., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26062/2015 and 26063- 26064/2015 has submitted as follows.- (i) That the Maharaja of Mysore had in fact executed a sale deed with respect to the land in the Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village in favour of Government by way of a sale deed dated 20.06.1951. Accordingly, by its previous actions it had affirmed the ownership of the Maharaja of Mysore as regards the property in Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village. Hence, the Government is estopped from taking any stand that the land in question belonged to it. Accordingly, by its previous actions it had affirmed the ownership of the Maharaja of Mysore as regards the property in Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village. Hence, the Government is estopped from taking any stand that the land in question belonged to it. (E) Sri R.S. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.25462-25497/2015, 28759-28764/2015, 33192-33194/2015, 1900/2018 and 44533/2018 has submitted as follows.- (i) That the respondent State cannot at this belated period of time turn around and contend to the contrary that the property in dispute belongs to the State, when once title of the Maharaja in the properties in question has been accepted. (ii) That the lands in Aalanahalli and Kurubarahalli Villages were acquired for formation of ‘Body Guard lines’, ‘Eastern Extension’, and ‘Palace purposes’ as per the notifications (02.10.1913, 19.01.1915, 22.08.1917 & 06.03.1919 (Annexures-P, P1, P2 and P3 in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015). That the Government of Karnataka had acquired land in ‘Karanji Kere’ as per notification dated 01.03.1977 which was a part of the extent of 1563.31 acres of Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village (Annexure-Z in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015). That the Government has acquired 69.11 acres of land in Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village for shooting area and riding school, showing the names of persons who had purchased the land from the Maharaja of Mysore as per the notifications published (02.09.1970, Annexure-AF in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015). Accordingly, the question of acquisition proceedings having been initiated showing the names of private persons as owners would not have arisen if the lands belonged to the State. Hence, it is contended that the State is estopped from now contending that the very same lands were the property belonging to it. (F) Sri Anandarama. K, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.27761-27762/2015, 35324/2015 & 44691-44693/2015 has submitted as follows :- (i) That a perusal of RTCs (Annexure-F in W.P.Nos.27761-27762/2015) would indicate that the land has been assessed to tax. If that were to be so, it is clear that ‘Kharab’ referred to in Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (‘K.L.R. Rules’) is that property which is not assessed to land revenue and as the revenue entries would indicate that properties are assessed to tax, the question of assertion of State that land is ‘B Kharab’ cannot be accepted. (G) Learned Senior Counsel, Sri Ashok Haranahalli along with Sri Vinayaka.B has also advanced arguments raising the contentions as noticed above. (G) Learned Senior Counsel, Sri Ashok Haranahalli along with Sri Vinayaka.B has also advanced arguments raising the contentions as noticed above. (H) Ms.S.R.Anuradha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ajay Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.36304/2015 & 2830-2833/2016 and other learned counsel appearing for petitioners in other writ petitions have reiterated the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel referred to above. III Contentions of respondent – State:- The learned Additional Advocate General, Sri M.Dhyan Chinnapppa along with Sri M.A.Subramani, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent – State has submitted as follows.- (i) That the Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned orders has exercised the power of procedural review that is available even in the absence of specific conferment of power of review under the statute. (ii) That as no notice was issued to the Tahsildar while passing of the order at the first instance on 20.06.2012, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in invoking such procedural power of review. (iii) That the impugned orders passed under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act is amenable to the remedy of an appeal under Section 67(3) of the K.L.R. Act and hence, the petitioners ought to be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of challenging the impugned orders before the civil court. (iv) That the bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India would operate only if the parties litigating are the Maharaja and the State. In the present case, as the petitioners are claiming derivative title from the Maharaja and by conveyance in their favour, they have derived independent title and accordingly the bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India would not be applicable. IV. Points for consideration:- (a) Power of review enabling reconsideration : It is the contention of the State that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.06.2012 at the first instance was passed without taking note of the views of Tahsildar and without taking note of revenue/survey records including Aakarbandh, re-survey Tippani which revealed classification of land as ‘B Kharab’. It is further contended that the power of procedural review is inherent and can be traced to Section 25 of the K.L.R. Act and could be invoked to prevent abuse of court process. It is further contended that the power of procedural review is inherent and can be traced to Section 25 of the K.L.R. Act and could be invoked to prevent abuse of court process. (ii) Learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 606 and Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Management of Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 1782 in support of the contention that the power of procedural review was available. (iii) The petitioners on the other hand have contended that the power of review ought to be specifically conferred by a statute and that inherent powers cannot be availed to review an order. Without prejudice to the above contention, it was further contended that the impugned order passed on a bare scrutiny would reveal that the impugned order has been passed by review of the order on merits after fresh consideration and hence is plainly in excess of power of procedural review as contended by the State. (iv) The Apex Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta’s case (Ibid), has first affirmed the position of law that the power of review must be conferred by a statute specifically or by necessary implication. While affirming the law laid down in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 525 , Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others., v. Sri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, 1971(3) SCC 844 , but after referring to Grindlays Bank (Supra note 11) has held that the Authorities could exercise the power of (a) procedural review and (b) review on merits. A close reading of para-19 of the judgment in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union (Supra note 12) though does affirm the existence of power of procedural review, but limits it to a category of cases; such as orders passed without notice to the opposite party, matters taken up for hearing and decided on a date other than date fixed for its hearing and like instances. (v) Such cases referred to, contemplate of a mistake committed by virtue of error of procedure vitiating the proceedings leading to setting aside the impugned order and re-hearing the same taking note of the procedural infirmity that has ensued. (v) Such cases referred to, contemplate of a mistake committed by virtue of error of procedure vitiating the proceedings leading to setting aside the impugned order and re-hearing the same taking note of the procedural infirmity that has ensued. The existence of such power is not in dispute but in the present case the defect in the order that is sought to be addressed cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be an error of procedure. The impugned order reveals of a review on merits, this becomes apparent on a reading of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.06.2012 which is a considered order passed on merits and the present impugned order in effect reflects fresh consideration and arrival of a different conclusion. (vi) What needs to be noted is that the Deputy Commissioner at the first instance in the order passed in case Nos. RRT (others) 230 (1-10)/2009-2010, 1109 & 1152/2011-2012 dated 20.06.2012 had dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act on the premise that the lands were Government lands, and had eventually ordered the cancellation of entry in Column- 11 of the RTC indicating the nature of land holding as ‘Kharab’ The Authority had come to such conclusion after a detailed discussion after referring to the Instrument of Accession and the legal opinion dated 28.10.2011 and concluded that the properties held by the Royal Family were their private properties. (vii) The order recalling the order dated 20.06.2012 came to be challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.47983-47984/2012 and other petitions, wherein the orders recalling the order dated 20.06.2012 were set aside reserving liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, if it was found necessary, after issuing notice to the parties and then proceed to take decision afresh. However, such order cannot be construed ipso facto as conferring powers on the Deputy Commissioner to review the order dated 20.06.2012 on merits. (viii) In effect, the Deputy Commissioner has by the impugned orders dated 26.05.2015 passed an entirely different order while referring to various documents. The Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to reason that the power to withdraw the earlier order could be traced to inherent power available under Section 25 of the K.L.R. Act. The Deputy Commissioner has proceeded on the premise that land classified as ‘B Kharab’ cannot be diverted. The Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to reason that the power to withdraw the earlier order could be traced to inherent power available under Section 25 of the K.L.R. Act. The Deputy Commissioner has proceeded on the premise that land classified as ‘B Kharab’ cannot be diverted. It was observed that the question of entering names of private persons who trace their title to the Maharaja of Mysore was a subject matter of litigation in W.P.No.36901/1999, wherein this Court had directed the parties to make an application after the decision of the competent Authority. (ix) It is well settled that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred either expressly or by necessary implication and that inherent powers cannot be invoked to review an order. Recourse in the present case to Section 25 of the K.L.R. Act to justify review of the earlier order is not legally permissible. The observations of the Apex court in Patel Narshi Thakershi, (Supra note 15) extracted below justifies the above conclusion:- “4. …It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication….” The Apex Court had reiterated the same position in Kuntesh Gupta (Supra note 14, 11) and Binabai Bhate v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Others, (2011) 13 SCC 32 , 17, where the Apex Court has held that the power of review is a “creature of the statute” and must be specifically conferred, as also this Court in the case of D.P.Sharma v. State Transport Authority, ILR 1987 KAR 3255, 11. In light of absence of any provision conferring power of review, the impugned order which has the effect of reviewing the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.06.2012 on its merits cannot be sustained more so in light of the finding made above that there was no occasion to exercise power of procedural review. (x) Having held that reconsideration of the order dated 20.06.2012 is impermissible, in light of the contentions raised by parties as regards the merits of the impugned order, the other points for consideration are dealt with as below. (x) Having held that reconsideration of the order dated 20.06.2012 is impermissible, in light of the contentions raised by parties as regards the merits of the impugned order, the other points for consideration are dealt with as below. (b) Exercise of power under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act : The State while justifying the action of the Deputy Commissioner in passing the impugned order has contended that Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act could be invoked whenever State seeks to assert rights over any property leading to a formal enquiry and passing of an order deciding such claim. It is further contended that all revenue and survey records indicate that the properties were “B Kharab” lands which being public property, the petitioners’ assertion of private rights justifiably could be a subject matter of enquiry under Section 67 of the K.L.R. Act. (ii) The learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand have contended that the power to adjudicate on questions as to whether the property is the private property of the petitioners or property belonging to the State is beyond the scope of enquiry as envisaged under Section 67(2) of K.L.R. Act and cannot be invoked in the present case where title is being claimed through sale deeds that could be traced to the Maharaja of Mysore. It is contended that revenue authorities though are treated to be courts possessing quasi judicial power, they cannot be deemed to possess power to adjudicate, culminating in a decision having the effect of setting aside of the registered instruments. (iii) In the cases on hand, all the petitioners trace their title to the Maharaja of Mysore and claim to have derived title through registered deeds of conveyance. The revenue records have also been effected reflecting such transfer of title. The Mysore Maharaja himself who is now represented by his wife in W.P. No.25592/2015 has asserted title by relying on the agreement dated 23.01.1950 between the Governor General of India and the Maharaja of Mysore read alongwith the list of properties furnished which enumerates the properties in question to be private properties of the Maharaja of Mysore (Annexure-W in W.P.Nos.25462-497/2015). (iv) In light of the nature of claim of the Maharaja of Mysore, and the petitioners who claim subsidiary title and controvertion of such assertion by the State would by itself prima facie indicate a dispute relating to title. (iv) In light of the nature of claim of the Maharaja of Mysore, and the petitioners who claim subsidiary title and controvertion of such assertion by the State would by itself prima facie indicate a dispute relating to title. Such dispute relating to title falls outside the purview of any enquiry under Section 67 of the K.L.R. Act. (v) The Apex Court in the case of M.Sankaranarayanan v. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 661 has dealt with the precise question in an identical factual matrix relating to the same provision. The facts in the aforesaid case was that the Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service Commission had lodged a complaint on 14.05.2004 stating that the sale deed of the year 1900 relied upon by the First Princess of Mysore and who had executed several conveyances was illegal as the said sale deed was executed by Lancelot Ricketts in favour of the Dewan of Mysore and not to the First Princess of Mysore. The proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the K.L.R. Act as regards the occupants. The matter was taken up before the High Court and in the writ appeal, this Court had relegated the parties to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The said matter when taken up before the Apex Court and the Apex Court after noticing that there was title in the occupants that was traceable through sale deeds and noting further that the transaction was about 104 years prior to the issuance of sale deed and that the State had acquired portion of the same property has held as follows: “15. A bare reading of Section 67 shows that public roads, streets, lanes, etc. and all lands which are not properties of others, belong to the Government. Where the property is recorded in the ownership of any other person or persons who are legally capable of holding the property, the provisions of Section 67 will not apply. A bare reading of Section 67 shows that public roads, streets, lanes, etc. and all lands which are not properties of others, belong to the Government. Where the property is recorded in the ownership of any other person or persons who are legally capable of holding the property, the provisions of Section 67 will not apply. Section 67 cannot be used to dispute the title of persons who have been holding the property for more than 100 years….” This position of law has been reiterated in the case of Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust, through Velji Devshi Patel v. Collector, Haridwar and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 418 at para-25, where the Court goes a step further to hold that the power to adjudicate is solely with the civil courts and has observed as follows: “25. … To allow administrative authorities of the State – including the Collector, as in the present case – to adjudicate upon matters of title involving civil disputes would be destructive of the Rule of Law. The Collector is an officer of the State. He can exercise only such powers as the law specifically confers upon him to enter upon private disputes. In contrast, a civil court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all matters involving civil disputes except where the jurisdiction of the court is taken away, either expressly or by necessary implication, by statute….” (vi) A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jayamma and Others v. State of Karnataka, represented by its Secretary and Others, W.P.No.6872/2013 disposed off on 24.01.2020 was considering the scope and extent of power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner who was acting as a quasi judicial Authority while exercising the revisional powers. The Court while reiterating the position of law as noticed above and noticing that the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has been enacted in exercise of legislative power traceable to Entry-45 and Entry-65 of List-II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India has observed as follows: “67. …Revenue authorities do not regulate the acquisition or extinction of rights in properties including agricultural lands etc., Revenue authorities are primarily required to keep a record of the names of persons, who have acquired rights for ensuring that the revenue i.e., the land revenue is collected from such persons which is the basic purpose of the Act.” “84. …Revenue authorities do not regulate the acquisition or extinction of rights in properties including agricultural lands etc., Revenue authorities are primarily required to keep a record of the names of persons, who have acquired rights for ensuring that the revenue i.e., the land revenue is collected from such persons which is the basic purpose of the Act.” “84. Admittedly the object of the Act is only relating to land, the assessment and recovery of land revenue, the land revenue administration and other matters as contemplated under Entry 45 List-II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.” “85. The scope and object of the Act is only to deal with the land revenue including assessment and collection of revenue, maintenance of land revenue records, survey for revenue purpose, record of rights and alienation of revenue and authorities under Land Revenue Act have no jurisdiction to decide the title between the parties in respect of immovable property.” As K.L.R. Act traces its source of power to Entry-45 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, even while construing the existence of expansive powers to deal with allied issues related to items in Entry-45 of List-II, it cannot be stretched so far as to confer powers relating to adjudication of title disputes which is the sole domain of courts. (vii) It is also to be noted that Section 67 of the K.L.R. Act can be invoked only where title is not vested in any individual. In all the cases that were pending before the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners rely on registered instruments, the cancellation of which would require an appropriate declaration by Court as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Deputy Commissioner acting as an Enquiring Authority in terms of Section 67 of K.L.R. Act exercising power in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under the K.L.R. Rules clearly reflects of a summary enquiry and the Deputy Commissioner cannot be construed to be a court for the purposes of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Deputy Commissioner acting as an Enquiring Authority in terms of Section 67 of K.L.R. Act exercising power in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under the K.L.R. Rules clearly reflects of a summary enquiry and the Deputy Commissioner cannot be construed to be a court for the purposes of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (viii) The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Padmavati Devi (Smt.) (Dead) by LRs and Others, (1995) Supp.(2) SCC 290 where question arose as to whether the State Government can take recourse to a summary procedure under the State revenue laws when such person raises a bona fide dispute about his right to remain in occupation over such land by way of defence to the claim of ejectment, held as follows: “6. As noticed earlier Section 91 of the Act prescribes a summary procedure for eviction of a person who is found to be in unauthorised occupation of Government land. The said provisions cannot be invoked in a case where the person in occupation raises bona fide dispute about his right to remain in occupation over the land. Dealing with similar provisions contained in Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1945, this Court in Govt. of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao has laid down that the summary remedy for eviction provided by Section 6 of the said Act could be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are in unauthorised occupation of any land which is the property of the Government and if the person in occupation has a bona fide claim to litigate he could not be ejected save by the due process of law and that the summary remedy prescribed by Section 6 was not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated questions of title. For the same reasons, it can be said that summary remedy available under Section 91 of the Act is not the legal process which is suited for adjudication of complicated questions of title where the person sought to be evicted as an unauthorised occupant makes a bona fide claim regarding his right to be in possession. For the same reasons, it can be said that summary remedy available under Section 91 of the Act is not the legal process which is suited for adjudication of complicated questions of title where the person sought to be evicted as an unauthorised occupant makes a bona fide claim regarding his right to be in possession. In such a case the proper course is to have the matter adjudicated by the ordinary courts of law.” The power under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is vested in a “court” to make a declaration that any person is entitled to any legal character or to any right in property. Such power would extend to cancellation of registered instruments as being void or voidable as the case may be under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. (ix) To construe that there is no bar on the revenue court on adjudicating issues which would have the effect of declaration as regards to the legal character or any right in the property would imply that a revenue court is “court” for the purposes of Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which is untenable as discussed in paragraph Nos. (vi) and (vii). (x) In the present case, the nature of enquiry as contemplated under Section 67 of the K.L.R. Act expressly excludes cases where the dispute relates to property “which are not the property of individuals” and excludes such disputes where “rights of such persons may be established,” all of which makes it clear that the adjudicating authority under Section 67 of K.L.R. Act has a self-limiting jurisdiction as noticed above. Accordingly, wherever the facts make out for the existence of dispute that involves adjudication by a court in exercise of power conferred under Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act relating to a property, the adjudicating authority under Section 67 of K.L.R. Act is ousted from adjudication of such disputes. (xi) The exclusion of jurisdiction of a court under Section 9 of C.P.C. presupposes bar of cognizance of suits either expressly or impliedly. (xi) The exclusion of jurisdiction of a court under Section 9 of C.P.C. presupposes bar of cognizance of suits either expressly or impliedly. The procedure prescribed under the K.L.R. Act and the K.L.R. Rules providing for adjudication of claims would indicate that the enquiry is summary in nature, excluding exercise of power under Section 31 or Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and hence in the present case, the civil courts continue to have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes as made out and their jurisdiction is not excluded by the redressal mechanism provided for under the K.L.R. Act. Accordingly, the remedy under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act cannot be an answer to the State’s assertion of its rights over the properties of petitioners who base their title on registered instruments. (c) Bar to entertain disputes, except as provided by the Agreement dated 23.01.1950 and the express bar of interference by courts as contained in Article 363 of the Constitution of India: 1. Bar as per Agreement dated 23.01.1950:- (i) An Instrument of Accession (Annexure-U in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015) was entered into between the Maharaja of Mysore and the Dominion of India acceding Mysore to the Dominion of India. An agreement was entered into on 23.01.1950 (Annexure-V1 in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015) between the Governor General of India and the Maharaja of Mysore which provided for rights, privileges and dignities of the Maharaja. Article II(1) of the agreement provides that the Maharaja shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties as distinct from State properties. Article II(2) of the agreement further provides that the Maharaja of Mysore would furnish to the Government of India an inventory of all immoveable property held by him as such private property. The list of immoveable properties held by the Maharaja of Mysore as private property as on 26.01.1950 is notified by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of States (Annexure-W in W.P.Nos.25462-25497/2015). As per the list, the properties which are the subject matter of impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner are found to be the private properties of the Maharaja of Mysore. The State does not controvert the plain understanding of the list of properties, but contends that the properties that have been classified as ‘B Kharab’ properties could not have been given to the Maharaja of Mysore as per the agreement. The State does not controvert the plain understanding of the list of properties, but contends that the properties that have been classified as ‘B Kharab’ properties could not have been given to the Maharaja of Mysore as per the agreement. (ii) Article II(3) of the agreement provides that disputes relating to whether any item of property is the private property of the Maharaja or property of the State is to be referred to such person as the Government of India may nominate and the decision of such person shall be final and binding on all concerned. It is clear that in light of the specific contention by the State, including as made out in their statement of objections that the properties are ‘B Kharab’ lands and hence belong to the State and can never be deemed to have been vested in the Maharaja, is a dispute relating to the provision in the agreement. Such dispute that is now sought to be made out would require to be referred to the person as contemplated under Article II(3) of the agreement dated 23.01.1950 and cannot be a subject matter for adjudication by any other mode of redressal available in usual course. 2. Bar as contained in Article 363 of the Constitution of India :- (i) Article 363 of the Constitution of India bars interference by courts in disputes arising out of provisions of a treaty/agreement/covenant or other similar instruments executed before the commencement of Constitution by any ruler of an Indian State and the Government of Dominion of India. The agreement entered into on 23.01.1950 is prior to 26.01.1950 when the Constitution came into force. It is not in dispute that the Maharaja of Mysore pursuant to the agreement dated 23.01.1950 between the Maharaja and the Dominion of India has furnished an inventory which contains details of private properties which are the subject matter of present litigation. If that were to be so, the present dispute is one relating to the ‘provision of a treaty/agreement’ as contemplated under Article 363 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the bar under Article 363 of Constitution of India would also operate shutting out interference by courts. Further, as noticed above, the resolution of dispute relating to provision of agreement would have to be made by falling back upon the provisions of the agreement itself. Accordingly, the bar under Article 363 of Constitution of India would also operate shutting out interference by courts. Further, as noticed above, the resolution of dispute relating to provision of agreement would have to be made by falling back upon the provisions of the agreement itself. Accordingly, the interference by the Deputy Commissioner in the present case is impermissible. (ii) The Apex Court while considering assertion of a dispute by the Maharaja of Holkar relating to the properties in the inventory has held that there would be a bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ushadevi, (2015) 8 SCC 672 , 24. On similar lines, the court has upheld the bar under Article 363 in the case of Dr. Karan Singh v. State of J&K and Another, (2004) 5 SCC 698 , 18, which fortifies the above conclusion. (iii) The contention of learned Additional Advocate General that procedure for resolution of dispute as per Article II(3) of the agreement would not be applicable insofar as many of the petitioners are private parties claiming through the Maharaja of Mysore is liable to be rejected, as the bar relates to dispute relating to the provision of the agreement, which dispute can be at the instance of any person not necessarily by a party to the agreement. It is also to be noted that the Maharaja himself through his legal representatives is the petitioner in W.P.No.25592/2015. (d) Power must be exercised within a reasonable time: (i) By virtue of the impugned order dated 26.05.2015, it is declared that the lands in question were ‘B Kharab’ lands and is to be reserved for public purpose. Further, the Tahsildar has been directed to cancel all Kathas standing in the names of the petitioners in the survey numbers in question. As the Katha in the names of successive predecessors-in-title of the petitioners can be traced back to the time subsequent to the conveyance by the Maharaja on the first occasion, the exercise of power by initiating proceedings in the year 2011-2012 by the Authorities has been called into question by a large number of petitioners on the ground that power is sought to be exercised after an unreasonable period of delay of many decades. (ii) The learned counsel for the petitioners have filed the synopsis with necessary documents detailing sale from the Maharaja of Mysore, mutation entry effected pursuant to such conveyance at the first instance as per the order dated 27.05.2020 passed in W.P.No.22658/2015 and connected writ petitions. (iii) Taking note of the details furnished as well as the details available in the writ petitions and the synopsis filed earlier, the Table here-in-below is prepared. The transfer of title by the Maharaja of Mysore in favour of predecessor-in-title of the petitioners is evidenced by the details furnished in Column No.2 and the details the earliest mutation/RTCs which have been ordered to be set aside are found at Column No.3 of the Table extracted hereinbelow:- 1 2 3 4 5 Writ Petition Number Date of earliest sale deed evidencing conveyance from Maharaja of Mysore Details of earliest mutation/RTCs in the name of petitioner/predecessor-in-title Details of the order of Deputy Commissioner impugned in the writ petitions Details of primary, consequential reliefs sought in the writ petitions 22658-22662/2015 & 22663/2015 (i) Reg.–N.Raghavendra Murthy (petitioner No.1):- Details of earliest mutation pursuant to the first sale deed executed by the members of Royal family not forthcoming. RRT No.542/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. To issue writ of certiorari to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.542/2014- 2015 Sale deed dated 05.06.1974 executed by the family members of the Royal family in favour of Sri Haji Abdul Wahid, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner with respect to an extent of 10 acres in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village. (ii)Reg.–Atteeq Ahmed (petitioner No.2):- (a)Sale deed dated 01.07.1974 executed by the erstwhile Ruler Srikantadatta Wodeyar with respect to 10 acres in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Haji Abdul Rawoof, (b)Sale deed dated 15.07.1974 executed by the erstwhile Ruler Srikantadatta Wodeyar with respect to 10 acres in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Haji Abdul Rawoof. (c)Sale deed dated 16.07.1974 executed by the erstwhile Ruler Srikantadatta Wodeyar with respect to 21 acres in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Haji Abdul Rawoof. (d)Sale deed dated 04.07.1974 executed by the erstwhile Ruler Srikantadatta Wodeyar with respect to 1735 square yards in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Haji Abdul Rawoof. (c)Sale deed dated 16.07.1974 executed by the erstwhile Ruler Srikantadatta Wodeyar with respect to 21 acres in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Haji Abdul Rawoof. (d)Sale deed dated 04.07.1974 executed by the erstwhile Ruler Srikantadatta Wodeyar with respect to 1735 square yards in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Haji Abdul Rawoof. (e)Sale deed dated 03.07.1974 executed by the erstwhile Ruler Srikantadatta Wodeyar with respect to 24200 square yards in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Haji Abdul Rawoof. (a) Sale deed dated 16.07.1974 executed by Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar measuring 10 acres in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Abdul Rahim, predecessorin- title of the petitioners. (iv) Reg.– Mujeed Ahmad (petitioner No.5) (a) Sale deed dated 01.07.1974 executed by Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar measuring 10 acres in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Abdul Salam, predecessorin- title of the petitioner. (b) Sale deed dated 15.07.1974 executed by Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar measuring 08 acres including 1 acre of Kharab in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Abdul Salam, predecessorin- title of the petitioner. (v) Reg.– Ms.Saleha Begum (petitioner No.6):- (a) Sale deed dated 01.07.1974 executed by Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar measuring 10 acres in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Abdul Suban, predecessor-in- title of the petitioner. (b) Sale deed dated 13.07.1974 executed by Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar measuring 24 acres including Kharab in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Abdul Suban, predecessorin- title of the petitioner. (c) Sale deed dated 13.07.1974 executed by Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar measuring 08 acres including 1 acre Kharab in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Abdul Suban, predecessor-in- title of the petitioners. 23040/2015 Sale deed dated 10.09.1971 executed by the Maharaja of Mysore through GPA holder N.Nagarajappa measuring 08 acres in Block ‘C’ of Sy.No.41 of Aalanahalli village in favour of Smt.Yashodamma, the petitioner herein. (As per the synopsis submitted on 6.6.2020) M.R.No.8/1971-1972 effected pursuant to the sale deed executed by the Maharaja of Mysore in favour of Smt.Yashodamma, petitioner herein. RTCs from the year 1985-86 onwards. RRT No.541/2014-15 order dated 26.05.2015. (i) To issue writ of certiorari to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.541/2014- 2015. (ii) To issue writ of mandamus to pass necessary orders to remove the entry ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue records. RTCs from the year 1985-86 onwards. RRT No.541/2014-15 order dated 26.05.2015. (i) To issue writ of certiorari to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.541/2014- 2015. (ii) To issue writ of mandamus to pass necessary orders to remove the entry ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue records. 23079/2015 Sale deed dated 07.05.1971 executed by Maharaja of Mysore through his GPA holder N.Nagarajappa measuring 24 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli in favour of Smt.B.K.Savithramma, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. (As per synopsis submitted on 06.06.2020). M.R.No.10/1970-1971 effected reflecting the sale deed executed by Maharaja of Mysore in favour of Smt.B.K.Savithramma, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. (i) To issue writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 15 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. (ii) To issue writ of mandamus to remove the entry ‘B Kharab’ in revenue records. 23791/2015 Sale deed dated 17.08.1974 executed by Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar measuring 7 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village in favour of Sri Ananthanarayana, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. Only RTC entries in the name of petitioner A.Chandrashekar and others from 2002-2003 is available. RRT No.542/2014- 2015 To issue writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.542/2014- 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 24853/2015 Original Sale deed dated 15.06.1974 executed by Sri Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar represented by his Trustees in favour of Sri R.G.Abdul Jabbar, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner in respect of 11 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village. Details of earliest mutation not forthcoming. RRT No.542/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. (i) To set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.542/2014- 2015. (ii) To restore the original entries in the revenue records in the name of petitioner. 25462/2015 (i) Smt. Muniyamma, predecessor-in-title of the petitioners has purchased land through sale deed dated 15.01.1971 executed by the GPA holder of Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar with respect to an extent of 33.28 acres of land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village. M.R.No.5/1970-71 in favour of Smt.Muniyamma. (i) RRT/540/2014-2015 dated 26.05.2015. (i) To quash order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 and 541/2014-2015. (ii) RRT/541/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015. (ii) To quash the mutation orders made with respect to Sy.No.4 of Kurubahalli and Sy.No.41 of Aalanahalli pursuant to the orders of Deputy Commissioner. M.R.No.5/1970-71 in favour of Smt.Muniyamma. (i) RRT/540/2014-2015 dated 26.05.2015. (i) To quash order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 and 541/2014-2015. (ii) RRT/541/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015. (ii) To quash the mutation orders made with respect to Sy.No.4 of Kurubahalli and Sy.No.41 of Aalanahalli pursuant to the orders of Deputy Commissioner. 25474 – 25475/2015 Sale deed dated 22.04.1966 executed by Maharaja of Mysore in favour of Smt.Indiramma with respect to an extent of 8 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Block-A of Kurubarahalli village. M.R.No.2/1966-1967 in favour of Smt.Indiramma. 25476-25477/2015 Sale deed dated 6.5.1974 executed by Maharani Indirakshidevi Trust in favour of Hajee Mohammed Ibrahim with respect to an extent of land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village. M.R.No.17/1973-1974 in favour of Hajee Mohammed. 25478/2015 Sale deed dated 6.5.1974 executed by Maharani Indirakshidevi Trust in favour of Hajee Ibrahim with respect to an extent of 12 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village. Details of earliest mutation not forthcoming. 25479/2015 Sale deed dated 4.7.1971 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar represented through his Power of Attorney holder in favour of Smt.Saraswathi Bai with respect to an extent of 10 acres of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village. Details of earliest mutation not forthcoming. 25480/2015 Sale deed dated 02.02.1972 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of Smt.Jayalakshmi with respect to an extent of 4 acres 36 guntas of land in Block No.16 of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli and 10 guntas of land in Block No.1 in Sy.No.41 of Aalanahalli village. M.R.No.1/1972-1973 25481/2015 Sale deed dated 7.5.1971 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of Smt.Revathi Uchil with respect to an extent of 26 acres of land in Sy.No.4, Block No. E and E1 of Kurubarahalli village. M.R.No.9/1970-1971 25482- 25485/2015 Sale deed dated 29.5.1971 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of P.Somu with respect to an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.4, Block No.C of Kurubarahalli village. M.R.No.1/1971-1972 25486 – 25488/2015 Sale deed dated 21.4.1971 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of B.G.Uttaiah with respect to an extent of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.4, Block No.3 of Kurubarahalli village.. M.R.No.8/1971-1972. 25492- 25495/2015 Sale deed dated 7.5.1971 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of Smt.B.K.Savithramma with respect to an extent of 24 acres of land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village. Details of earliest mutation not forthcoming. M.R.No.8/1971-1972. 25492- 25495/2015 Sale deed dated 7.5.1971 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of Smt.B.K.Savithramma with respect to an extent of 24 acres of land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village. Details of earliest mutation not forthcoming. 25497/2015 Sale deed dated 10.6.1972 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of U.G.Gopalkrishne Urs with respect to an extent of 7 acres of land in Sy.No.4, Block No. B of Kurubarahalli village. M.R.No.24/1972-1973. (Details as furnished in memo dated 20.12.2019 and 12.06.2020). 25592/2015 Petitioner is the wife of late Sri Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar to whose share the property in Sy No.4 of Kurubarahalli, Sy.No.31 of Chowdahalli and Sy.No.41 of Aalanahalli fell as per the family settlement in the year 1984 ----- RRT No.541/2014-15 RRT No.542/2014-15 Dated 26.05.2015 To issue writ of certiorari to set aside the order passed in RRT Nos.541/2014-2015 and No.542/2014- 2105 dated 26.05.2015. 25655- 25656/2015 Sale deed executed on 21.04.1971 with respect to an extent of 10 acres of land in Kurubarahalli in Sy.No.4 (earlier Block Nos.6 and 7, present Sy.No.4/P/31, City Sy.No.6970) by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar through GPA holder in favour of predecessor-in-title of the petitioner Sri K.M.Muthanna. M.R.No.9/1971-72. RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. Mutation entries in the name of vendor K.M.Muthanna effected pursuant to the sale deed dated 21.04.1971 (ii) Writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to restore RTC and mutation entries in the name of petitioners and remove the entry ‘B Kharab’ in revenue records. 25663- 25673/2015 Sale deed executed on 21.04.1971 with respect to an extent of 10 acres of land in Kurubarahalli in Sy.No.4 (earlier Block Nos.6 and 7, present Sy.No.4/P/31, City Sy.No.6970) executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar through GPA holder in favour of predecessor-in-title of the petitioner Sri K.M.Muthanna. M.R.No.9/1971-72 RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order in RRT No.540/2014-2015 Mutation entries in the name of vendor K.M.Muthanna effected pursuant to the sale deed dated 21.04.1971. (ii) Writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to restore RTC and mutation entries in the name of petitioner and to remove entry of ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue records. (ii) Writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to restore RTC and mutation entries in the name of petitioner and to remove entry of ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue records. 25675- 25686/2015 Sale deed executed on 21.04.1971 with respect to an extent of 10 acres of land in Kurubarahalli in Sy.No.4 (earlier Block Nos.6 and 7, present Sy.No.4/P/31, City Sy.No.6970) executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar through GPA holder in favour of predecessor-in-title of the petitioner Sri K.M.Muthanna M.R.No.9/1971-72 RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014-2015 (New Sy.No.4/P31 City Sy.No.6970) of Kurubarahalli Village Mutation entries in the name of vendor K.M.Muthanna effected pursuant to the sale deed dated 21.04.1971 (ii) Writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to restore RTC and mutation entries in the names of petitioners and remove the entry of ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue records. It is also to be noted that Mutation entry No.239 was effected as per order dated 10.05.1968 directing all lands of Kurubarahalli excluding Sy.No.1, 2 and 3 to be made out in the name of Maharaja of Mysore. Copy of the said order is produced as Annexure-M to the writ petition. 26062/2015 Sale deed dated 12.04.1960 with respect to an extent of 1 acre 18 guntas marked as Block No.2, 25 guntas marked as Block No.3/B and 4 acres 16 guntas marked as Block No.4, totally measuring 6 acres 19 guntas of Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village executed by Maharaja of Mysore represented by his Secretary in favour of the maternal grandfather of the petitioner B.Kempaiah. MR No.17/2000-2001. RRT No.540/2014-15 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.05.2015 of Deputy Commissioner in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. Details of mutation relating to earlier sale deed of 12.04.1960 not forthcoming. (ii) Writ of mandamus to direct the Tahsildar to remove the entry of ‘B kharab’ in the RTCs of the land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village and restore revenue entries in the name of the petitioner in respect of 6 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.4. (iii) Issue writ of mandamus directing third respondent – Tahsildar to enter the name of petitioner in respect of an extent of 1 acre 39½ guntas retained by the petitioner in Sy.No.4. (iii) Issue writ of mandamus directing third respondent – Tahsildar to enter the name of petitioner in respect of an extent of 1 acre 39½ guntas retained by the petitioner in Sy.No.4. 26063- 26064/2015 Sale deed dated 22.09.1971 executed by the Maharaja of Mysore in favour of Smt.T.V.Alamelu w/o Sri S.V.Rajarathnam, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner with respect to an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas marked as Block No. N of Kurubarahalli Village. M.R.No.2/1972-1973 dated 17.04.1972. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 (ii) Writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to remove entry of ‘B Kharab’ in RTC of land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli and restore revenue entries in the name of petitioners in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.4. 26717/2015 & 26852/2015 Sale deed dated 09.09.1971 executed by the Maharaja in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner Sri R.G. Hajji Mohammad Ameer with respect to an extent of 15 acres in Sy.No.41 of Aalanahalli Village. Details of earliest mutation pursuant to the first sale deed executed by the members of the Royal family not forthcoming. Only detail available is Uttara Patra No.R7PRFK (41/88-89) dated 23.05.1989. RRT No.541/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 To issue writ of certiorari to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.541/2014- 2015. 26814- 26815/2015 (i) Schedule ‘A’ property claimed by petitioner No.1 Details of earliest mutation not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015. (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Predecessor-in-title of the petitioner has acquired the schedule property measuring an extent of 8 acres in Block-C of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village through sale deed dated 3.5.1967. (ii) Consequently to direct the respondents to restore mutation and Khata in the name of petitioners in respect of schedule properties by deleting the entries pursuant to the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. (ii) Schedule ‘B’ property claimed by petitioner No.2 Predecessor-in-title of the petitioner has acquired the schedule property measuring an extent of 5 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village through sale deed dated 10.6.1972. 26816/2015 Maharaja of Mysore sold property to Smt.Lalithamma Kumaraswamy, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner an extent of 20 acres of land Block-C of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village through sale deed dated 9.9.1971. 26816/2015 Maharaja of Mysore sold property to Smt.Lalithamma Kumaraswamy, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner an extent of 20 acres of land Block-C of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village through sale deed dated 9.9.1971. Details of earliest mutation not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.05.2015 passed in RRT No.540/2014-15 by the Deputy Commissioner. RTCs from the year 1990-1991 onwards. (ii) Seeks restoration of mutation and Katha in the name of the petitioner by deleting mutation and RTC entries made pursuant to the impugned order of Deputy Commissioner. M.R.No.5/1998-1999. 27488- 27492/2015 & 27494- 27495/2015 Item No.1 of Schedule ‘A’ property was purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner from Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar represented through his GPA holder through sale deed dated 21.10.1971 with respect to an extent of 4 acres 24 guntas in Block-11 of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village and through the same sale deed an extent of 16 guntas in Sy.No.41 of Aalanahalli Village came to be purchased Details of earliest mutation reflecting sale deed executed by Maharaja of Mysore is not forthcoming. Mutation entry in the name of Krishna S/o T.Thimmaiah viz., M.R.No.1/2006-2007 is only forthcoming. RRT Nos.540/2014-15 and 541/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) To set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner in RRT Nos.540/ 2014-15 and 541/2014-015 dated 26.05.2015. Item No.3 of Schedule ‘A’ property was purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner from Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar represented through his GPA holder through sale deed dated 21.10.1971 with respect to an extent of 4 acres 17 guntas in Block-12 of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village and through the same sale deed an extent of 23 guntas in Sy.No.41 Block-E of Aalanahalli Village came to be purchased. (ii) To direct the respondents to restore mutation and Khata in the name of the petitioners by deleting the mutation and RTC entries made pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Item No.4 of Schedule ‘A’ property was purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner from Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar represented through his GPA holder through sale deed dated 21.10.1971 with respect to an extent of 4 acres 10 guntas in Block-13 of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village and through the same sale deed an extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.41, Block-F of Aalanahalli Village came to be purchased. Item No.5 of Schedule ‘A’ property was purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner from Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar represented through his GPA holder through sale deed dated 06.12.1971 with respect to an extent of 4 acres 10 guntas in Block-14 of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village and through the same sale deed an extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.41. Block-G of Aalanahalli Village came to be purchased. Item No.6 of Schedule ‘A’ property was purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner from Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar represented through his GPA holder through sale deed dated 31.05.1971 with respect to an extent of 5 acres in Block-C of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village. Schedule ‘B’ property was purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner from Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar represented through his GPA holder through sale deed dated 09.12.1971 with respect to an extent of 4 acres 10 guntas in Block-H of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village and through the same sale deed an extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.41 of Aalanahalli Village came to be purchased in favour of P.E.Vijayakumar, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. 27761- 27762/2015 Sale deed dated 9.5.1974 executed by Maharajakumari Indrakshi Deviavaru Trust in favour of the petitioner with respect to an extent of 5 acres in Block No.14 of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village. (i) M.R.No.13/1973- 1974. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order in RRT No.540/2014-2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. (ii) Record of Rights from 1971 to 2011. (ii) Writ of mandamus to retain the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. 27966/2015 Sale deed dated 01.06.1976 executed in favour of Smt.Mumtaz Ahamed Siddiqui by “Yuvaraja Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar Trust” with respect to an extent of 2 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No.39 of Chowdahalli Village. Details of earliest mutation pursuant to the sale deed executed by the Maharaja of Mysore not forthcoming. RRT No.542/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. Writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order in RRT No.542/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. M.R.No.19/2005-2006 in the name of the petitioner. 28082- 28085/2015 The father of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and grand father of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 have purchased an extent of 40 acres through sale deed dated 26.08.1961 executed by Maharaja of Mysore in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village. M.R.No.19/2005-2006 in the name of the petitioner. 28082- 28085/2015 The father of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and grand father of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 have purchased an extent of 40 acres through sale deed dated 26.08.1961 executed by Maharaja of Mysore in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village. Mutation entry made on 6.1.1962 in Index of Land in Form Nos.5 and 6 reflecting name of late T.Boraiah, father of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and grand father of petitioner Nos.4 and 5. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. (i) To quash the order bearing RRT No. 540/2014-2015 dated 26.05.2015 of the Deputy Commissioner. 28196/2015 Sale deed dated 24.08.1974 executed by the Maharaja of Mysore in favour of M.V.Dhanarajulu Naidu, predecessor-in-title of the petitioners with respect to an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.4/32P of Kurubarahalli Village. Details of earliest mutation pursuant to the sale deed executed by the Maharaja of Mysore not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. (i) Writ of certiorari to set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 M.R.No.1/1982-83 is noted in the Patta Book reflecting change of mutation in the name of the petitioner. (ii) Writ of mandamus to direct the Deputy Commissioner to consider request of petitioner for conversion of land. 28197/2015 Sale deed dated 6.5.1974 measuring 3 acres in Block No.7 of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village executed by Maharajakumari Indirakshi Deviavaru Trust in favour of Ms.Hajini Zikriya Begum, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. Details of earliest mutation pursuant to the sale deed executed by the Maharaja of Mysore not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015 Writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. 28198/2015 Sale deed dated 6.5.1974 measuring 3 acres of Sy.No.4, Block No.8 (New P-14) of Kurubarahalli Village executed by Maharajakumari Indirakshi Deviavaru Trust in favour of Ms.Hajini Zikriya Begum, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. Details of earliest mutation pursuant to the sale deed executed by the Maharaja of Mysore not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015 Writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. 28199/2015 Sale deed dated 28.11.1960 executed by Maharaja of Mysore with respect to an extent of 2 acres of land which is part of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village in favour of Balakrishna Shetty, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. Details of earlier mutation relating to Sale deed of 28.11.1960 not forthcoming. 28199/2015 Sale deed dated 28.11.1960 executed by Maharaja of Mysore with respect to an extent of 2 acres of land which is part of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village in favour of Balakrishna Shetty, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. Details of earlier mutation relating to Sale deed of 28.11.1960 not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. Khata effected in the name of Ananthavardhan Goenka and Ms.Priti Goenka, subsequent purchasers in the year 1984 (ii) To issue an order of prohibition restraining respondents from initiating any proceedings in order to cancel Khata standing in the name of petitioner. 28247- 28248/2015 Sale deed dated 06.05.1974 measuring 5 acres in Block No.4 of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village executed by Maharajakumari Indirakshi Deviavaru Trust in favour of Ms.Hajini Zikriya Begum, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. Details of mutation relating to the sale deed dated 06.05.1974 not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 Writ of certiorari to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. 28250/2015 Sale deed dated 06.05.1974 measuring 3 acres, Block No.9 (New PB-9) in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village executed by Maharajakumari Indirakshi Deviavaru Trust in favour of Ms.Haji Mohamed Ibrahim, predecessor-in title of the petitioner. Details of earlier mutation relating to sale deed dated 06.05.1974 not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015 Writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. M.R.No.9/1992-1993 showing the name of Ms.Hajini Zaihunnisa W/o Haji Mohamed Ibrahim effected consequent to his death. 28456/2015 Gift deed dated 08.06.1962 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar with respect to an extent of 15 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village, Mysore in favour of Nagaprasannaraje Urs, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. RTCs were transferred in the name of donee Nagaprasannaraje Urs in the year 1981-1982. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. (ii) To issue a direction to restore the mutation and Khata entries in the names of petitioner by deleting mutation and RTC entries pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. (ii) To issue a direction to restore the mutation and Khata entries in the names of petitioner by deleting mutation and RTC entries pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 28719/2015 & 28720- 28723/2015 Sale deed dated 31.12.1971 with respect to an extent of 9 acres 7 guntas in Sy.No.4, Block No.27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 (new No.4/P52) of Kurubarahalli Village executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of - Details of mutation at the earliest point of time not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. (i) Sri Dhanraj Naidu, (ii) Bhaskar Naidu, (iii) Bheema Naidu (iv) Rangaswamy Naidu, (v) Madhavan Naidu, who are predecessors-in-title of the petitioner. (ii) Issue a direction to the respondents to restore names of petitioners in the revenue records as it was prior to the impugned order at Annexure-M. 28759/2015 (i) The father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have purchased 5 acres in Sy.No.4, Block No.5, of Kurubarahalli Village, through a registered sale deed dated 6.5.1974. Copy of mutation pursuant to the earliest sale deeds not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. (i) To quash the order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014-2015 (ii) To declare mutation order dated 26/29.05.2015 made in M.R.No.H1 in respect of Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village as regards petitioner Nos.3 to 6 as null and void (Annexure-T). 28761/2015 (ii) sale deed dated 26.08.1961 executed by the Maharaja of Mysore in favour of T.Boraiah with respect to an extent of 40 acres in Sy.No.4, Block-B, Kurubarahalli Village. Copy of mutation pursuant to the earliest sale deeds not forthcoming. (iii) To set aside orders dated 2.6.2015 made in LND (1)/CR.131 of 2015-2016 and order dated 3.6.2015 made in No.LND 28763/2015 (iii) Sale deed dated 17.03.1973 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of Bhaskar Naidu with respect to an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli. Copy of mutation pursuant to the earliest sale deeds not forthcoming. 28764/2015 (iv) Sale deed dated 23.12.1971 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of Smt.Puttamma, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner with respect to an extent of 5 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village. Copy of mutation pursuant to the earliest sale deeds not forthcoming. Copy of mutation pursuant to the earliest sale deeds not forthcoming. 28764/2015 (iv) Sale deed dated 23.12.1971 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of Smt.Puttamma, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner with respect to an extent of 5 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village. Copy of mutation pursuant to the earliest sale deeds not forthcoming. 28853/2015 The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner late T.Boraiah purchased an extent of 40 acres through sale deed dated 26.08.1961 from the Maharaja of Mysore out of Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village. Index of Land made in Form Nos.5 and 6 on 06.01.1962. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) To quash the order passed in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.5.2015 by the Deputy Commissioner. (ii) To declare that Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2) has no jurisdiction to decide issue of title to the schedule lands in proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 29049/2015 The mother of petitioner has purchased an extent of 24 acres out of Survey No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village from Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar under the registered sale deed dated 7.5.1971. M.R.No.9/1970-1971 RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. To set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner in RRT No.540/ 2014-2015 dated 26.05.2015. 30553- 30558/2015 & 32034-32038/2015 & 32039/2015 Petitioner purchased property in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village through sale deed dated 10.09.1971 from the Maharaja of Mysore through GPA holder Sri T.N.Nagarajappa. Details of earliest mutation not forthcoming. M.R.No.13/2001-2002. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. Writ of certiorari to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner in RRT No.540/2015 dated 26.05.2015. 30603/2015 & 34567- 34568/2015 Sale deed dated 06.05.1974 executed by Maharajakumari Inidrakshi Deviavaru Trust in favour of predecessor-in-title of the petitioner with respect to an extent of 6 acres in Block No.17 Sy.No.4; 4 acres 20 guntas of Block No.18 of Sy.No.4/P10 and 7 acres Sy.No.4/PB Block No.19 of Kurubarahalli Village. Record of Rights dated 10.05.1968 for the entire extent of 1563 acres 31 guntas of Sy.No.4 has been transferred by the Tahsildar in favour of Maharaja of Mysore. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order in RRT No.540/2014-2015 dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. (As per the details furnished in memo dated 20.12.2019) Details of subsequent mutation not forthcoming. (ii) issue a direction to Tahsildar to restore RTC and mutation entries in the name of the petitioner and remove the entry of ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue records. (As per the details furnished in memo dated 20.12.2019) Details of subsequent mutation not forthcoming. (ii) issue a direction to Tahsildar to restore RTC and mutation entries in the name of the petitioner and remove the entry of ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue records. 31029/2015 Sale deed dated 22.01.1969 executed by the Maharaja of Mysore in favour of Smt. M.Nagarathnammanni, predecessor-in-title of the petitioners with respect to an extent of land in Kurubarahalli Village. Details of RTC and mutation not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order passed in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015. (ii) Writ of mandamus to direct the Tahsildar to restore RTC and mutation entries in the name of the petitioners and to remove the entry ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue records. 31138- 31143/2015 Sale deed dated 26.01.1950 executed by the Maharaja of Mysore Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar through power of attorney holder H.Nagarajappa in favour of U.G.Lakshmikantharaje Urs with respect to the extents 5 acres and 7 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village. Details of earliest RTC and mutation not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order passed in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015. (ii) Writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from initiating proceedings against property of petitioners. 31444/2015 Sale deed dated 4.11.1971 executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar through his power of attorney of holder N.Nagarajappa with respect to an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.4/19B in favour of Sri B.Sreekantaiah S/o of late Basavaiah. M.R.No.13/1971-1972 RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015. (i) To quash the order dated 26.5.2015 made in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. (ii) To quash mutation order dated 29.05.2015 made in M.R.No.H1 RRT/2014-2015 in respect of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village insofar as the lands of the petitioner are concerned. 33192- 33194/2015 (i) Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar through his Power of Attorney Holder N.Nagarajappa executed registered sale deed on 03.11.1971 with respect to an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli in favour of B.Rama Singh, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. M.R.No.21/1971-72 effected with respect to an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.4 pursuant to the sale deed executed by Maharaja of Mysore. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 To quash the order dated 26.05.2015 passed in RRT No.540/2014-2015 by the Deputy Commissioner. M.R.No.21/1971-72 effected with respect to an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.4 pursuant to the sale deed executed by Maharaja of Mysore. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 To quash the order dated 26.05.2015 passed in RRT No.540/2014-2015 by the Deputy Commissioner. (ii) The predecessor-in-title of petitioner No.3, B.Uttaiah has purchased an extent of 5 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli from Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar through his power of Attorney Holder N.Nagarajappa under the registered sale deed 23.04.1971. 35324/2015 & 44691- 44693/2015 Predecessor-in-title of the petitioner purchased 2 acres of land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village through sale deed dated 28.12.1974 from the Maharaja of Mysore Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar through his power of attorney holder Sri N.Nagarajappa. (i) M.R.No.10/1982-83. RRT No.540/2014-15 as per order dated 26.05.2015 To quash the order of Deputy Commissioner in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015. (ii) RTC from 1982 to 2010. 35654/2015 & 42912- 42916/2015 The petitioner has purchased various extents of property in Sy.No.41 of Aalanahalli Village through registered sale deed dated 10.07.2012 executed by Sri Srikantadatta Wodeyar (sale deed pending registration). ---- RRT No.541/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) To issue writ of certiorari to quash the order passed in RRT No.541/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015. (ii) To issue writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the entry ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue records. 36304/2015 & 2830- 2833/2016 Sale deed dated 04.11.1971 executed by Sri Jayachamaraja Wodeyar in favour of Smt.Saraswathi Bai with respect to an extent of 5 acres excluding Kharab in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village. Record of Rights dated 10.05.1968 for the entire extent of 1563 acres 31 guntas of Sy.No.4 has been transferred by the Tahsildar in favour of Maharaja of Mysore. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) To quash the order passed in RRT No.540/2014- 15 dated 26.05.2015 by the Deputy Commissioner. Details of subsequent mutation not forthcoming. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to restore RTC and mutation entries in the name of petitioners and to remove the entry ‘B’ Kharab in the revenue records. 43884/2015 Gift Deed dated 6.8.1962 executed by the Maharaja of Mysore Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar in favour of T.B.Krishna Urs, the predecessor-in-title of petitioners with respect to an extent of 35 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village. Details of mutation pursuant to the Gift Deed not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order passed in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015. Details of mutation pursuant to the Gift Deed not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) Writ of certiorari to quash the order passed in RRT No.540/2014- 2015 dated 26.05.2015. RTCs from the year 1980-1981 to 2010-2011. (ii) Writ of mandamus to direct the Tahsildar to restore RTC and mutation entries in the name of the petitioner and to remove the entry ‘B Kharab’ in the revenue records. 12633/2016 &15024/2016 Gift deed dated 25.04.2013 executed by Srikantadatta Wodeyar measuring 15 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village in favour of the petitioner and A.Ramakrishnam Raju. Katha No.R(9)/PRKT/ 298/13-14. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 (i) To set aside the order dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014-15 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. (ii) To direct respondent No.2 to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. 63797- 63798/2016 Sale deed dated 30.08.1961 executed by Maharaja of Mysore measuring 40 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village in favour of Sri T.Boraiah, predecessor-in title of the petitioner. Details of RTC and mutation at the earliest point of time not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 To set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. RTCs of the year 2004- 2005. 1900/2018 Sale deed dated 26.08.1961 executed by Maharaja of Mysore with respect to an extent of 40 acres in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village in favour of Sri T.Boraiah and others predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. Record of Rights dated 10.05.1968 for the entire extent of 1563 acres 31 guntas of Sy.No.4 has been transferred by the Tahsildar in favour of Maharaja of Mysore. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 To set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. 44533/2018 Sale deed dated 02.02.1972 executed by Sri Jayachamaraja Wodeyar measuring 04 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli Village in favour of Sri D.Shantharam, predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. Petitioners have purchased a portion of this land from the vendors. Details of RTC and mutation at the earliest point of time reflecting conveyance from Maharaja of Mysore is not forthcoming. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 To quash the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. M.R.No.2/1992-93 (iv) The impugned orders are passed purportedly in exercise of power conferred under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act adjudicating the claim of the State that the lands in question were ‘B Kharab’ lands. RRT No.540/2014-15 dated 26.05.2015 To quash the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.05.2015 in RRT No.540/2014- 2015. M.R.No.2/1992-93 (iv) The impugned orders are passed purportedly in exercise of power conferred under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act adjudicating the claim of the State that the lands in question were ‘B Kharab’ lands. (v) The proceedings were admittedly initiated in 2011-2012 whereas the conveyances in favour of many of the petitioners as per the details available in the Table were many decades previously. Subsequent to such transfer in many of the cases, mutation/revenue entries have been effected. In fact as per the order dated 10.05.1968 (Annexure-M in W.P.No.25663-25673/2015), record of rights have been entered with respect to the entire extent of 1563 acres 31 guntas of Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli by the then Tahsildar. (vi) It is settled position in law that power conferred on an Authority or by a statute must be exercised within a reasonable period of time. The Apex Court in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others, (2009) 9 SCC 352 , was considering the case of exercise of revisional power under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Admittedly, there was no time limit prescribed for exercise of such power under the law and when such power was sought to be exercised after 17 years, it was held as follows:- “11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the Legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein.” In the present case, the exercise of power asserting the State’s claim in the year 2011-2012 having the consequence of cancelling mutations effected several decades ago as reflected in Column No.3 of the Table extracted hereinabove is clearly an effort to exercise power conferred beyond a reasonable period of time and hence impermissible. Accordingly, in such of the cases where mutation has been effected pursuant to the transfer by the Maharaja of Mysore at the first instance as indicated in Column No.3, exercise of power in the year 2010, 2011-2012 many decades subsequent to the effecting of such mutations is bad in law, as power is not only sought to be exercised after a reasonable period of time, but beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (e) Alternative remedy: (i) It is the contention of the State that as against the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act, there are alternative remedies available as provided under Section 67(3) of the K.L.R. Act which includes filing of a civil suit against the order passed under Section 67(2) of the K.L.R. Act or as against an order passed in revision or appeal. (ii) On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction and if that were to be so, the writ petitions challenging the validity of such orders would be maintainable. (iii) It is settled legal position that relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy to challenge the impugned orders as provided for under the statute instead of entertaining the writ petitions directly is a matter left to the discretion of the Court to be exercised keeping in mind the settled principle that a writ petition can be entertained directly against an order passed without jurisdiction. In fact, in the case of M.Sankaranarayanan (Supra note 23, 19), in the context of a broadly similar factual matrix and legal controversy where the jurisdiction of the revenue authority under Section 67 of the K.L.R. Act to initiate proceedings in respect of time barred claims was being considered, the Apex Court has held that the challenge to a notice without jurisdiction could be directly entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (iv) Even in the case of Kuntesh Gupta (Supra note 14) wherein a similar legal contention as regards to the power of review being exercised which came to be challenged was considered by the Apex Court. (iv) Even in the case of Kuntesh Gupta (Supra note 14) wherein a similar legal contention as regards to the power of review being exercised which came to be challenged was considered by the Apex Court. While holding that the Vice Chancellor did not have power of review as the same was not conferred by the Statutes of the University, and as regards availing of alternative remedy, it was held that the impugned order being one without jurisdiction, alternative remedy was not a bar to entertain the writ. (v) Accordingly, in light of the discussion supra regarding the legality of the impugned order which would clearly indicate that the impugned order is one without jurisdiction, it cannot be held that the writ petitions filed are not maintainable and hence the arguments to the contrary by the State are rejected. (vi) It is the contention of the State that the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6529/2007 and connected matters had relegated the parties claiming through the Maharaja of Mysore to work out their remedies before the civil court and a similar result ought to follow in the present case. A careful perusal of the said order would indicate that the Court has refused to adjudicate the issue in light of disputed questions of fact relating to the question as to whether the property in Survey No.1, Mysore Kasaba Hobli, Mysore was the private property of Maharaja of Mysore or belonged to the State. However, such exercise of discretion by the Court in refusing to adjudicate the claim made by the petitioners cannot forbid adjudication in any other subsequent case where material is placed before the Court enabling such adjudication. It is also to be noted that such adjudication as made by the Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 20.06.2012 is not in challenge in the present proceedings. It is the order dated 26.05.2015 which in effect has reviewed the order dated 20.06.2012 that has been challenged in these writ petitions. Hence, the order passed in W.P.No.6529/2007 and connected matters will not come to the aid of the State. (vii) Accordingly, in light of the above discussion on the points of consideration, the following order is passed:- I. The impugned orders dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RRT Nos.540/2014-2015, 541/2014-2015 and 542/2014-2015 are set aside. II. Hence, the order passed in W.P.No.6529/2007 and connected matters will not come to the aid of the State. (vii) Accordingly, in light of the above discussion on the points of consideration, the following order is passed:- I. The impugned orders dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RRT Nos.540/2014-2015, 541/2014-2015 and 542/2014-2015 are set aside. II. On the basis of various reliefs sought for as detailed in Column No.5 of the Table extracted above, the relief is moulded as per the directions made below to pre-empt unnecessary litigation between the petitioners and the State. (a) Consequent to setting aside of the impugned orders, the revenue entries including mutation wherever effected in the name of ‘Government’ pursuant to the impugned orders are hereby set aside. (b) The revenue authorities/municipal authorities to consider making appropriate entries in the names of the petitioners upon representations being made in accordance with law and as per the applicable procedure, in light of the findings made in this order. (c) Other consequential orders pursuant to setting aside of the impugned orders may be considered in accordance with law as per the procedure prescribed on the basis of representations of the petitioners to be made pursuant to the findings recorded in this order. (d) The entry ‘B Kharab’ wherever found in the revenue records of the petitioners to be deleted in light of setting aside of the impugned orders dated 26.05.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RRT Nos.540/2014-2015, 541/2014- 2015 and 542/2014-2015. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed off.