ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order bearing No.R.T.S.R.A.C.R.12/2009-10 dated 17.11.2009 vide Annexure-A passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent herein in respect of R.S.No.87/5 measuring 8 acres. Based on the agreement of sale the petitioner’s name was entered in column No.11 of the Record of Rights. But the said sale agreement has not been converted to absolute sale. The petitioner has not taken any action to enforce the agreement against the respondent to get the sale deed executed. The respondent requested the Tahasildar Navalgund to remove the entry made in column No.11 stating that it is invalid entry. The Tahasildar by his order dated 10.03.2008 ordered to remove the entry of petitioner’s name from column No.11 of Record of Rights. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahasildar, Navalgund, the petitioner herein filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad after conducting enquiry passed the order on 14.05.2009 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the sides under impugned order dated 17.11.2009 rejected the revision petition. The said revision petition is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The petitioner’s name was entered in column No.11 of Record of Rights based on the agreement of sale dated 25.08.1994. But, till this date, the petitioner has not taken any action against the respondent for enforcement of the said agreement of sale, to get the sale deed executed in his favour. On the basis of the agreement itself, the petitioner could not have got his name entered in column No.11. The petitioner states that he is an interested person over the property. An agreement of sale would not give absolute right over the property. Mere holder of an agreement of sale cannot get his name entered in the Record of Rights. The Tahsildar rightly removed his name from the Record of Rights on the application made by the respondent. The petitioner states that he is an interested person over the property. An agreement of sale would not give absolute right over the property. Mere holder of an agreement of sale cannot get his name entered in the Record of Rights. The Tahsildar rightly removed his name from the Record of Rights on the application made by the respondent. The agreement has not turned into absolute sale in favour of the petitioner. Agreement of sale cannot take the place of absolute sale deed. Both the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority have rightly rejected the appeal and revision of the petitioner. 5. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.