ORDER : 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents No.1 to 4. 2. The petitioners who are claiming to be the legal representatives of Sri.Shriramappa son of Gopalappa, in whose favour, Land Tribunal has granted the land are before this Court seeking writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.09.2019 made in R.A.No.33/201516 remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry. 3. It is the case of petitioners that Gopalappa, grandfather of the petitioners was granted occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.10/3 measuring 34 guntas; Sy.No.2/3 measuring 21 guntas and Old Sy.No.23/1 new Sy.No.23/3 measuring 6 guntas of Nallappanahalli village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Kolar Circle, Kolar under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act on 30.06.1964. According to the petitioners, the respondents who are in no way concerned to the lands in question got the katha pertaining to the said lands transferred in their names by inheritance. Against the said order, Shriramappa son of Gopalappa filed R.A.No.523/200910 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner cancelled the mutation entries in the names of respondents 5 to 10 and directed the Tahsildar to find out the genuineness of the grant order/occupancy rights granted in favour of Gopalappa and to take suitable action. Against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondents No.5 to 10 filed R.A.No.33/201516 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry to verify the veracity of grant made in favour of Gopalappa and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, restoring the entries made in the names of respondents No.5 to 10. Hence, the present writ petition for the reliefs sought for. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to lis. 5. Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that respondents No.5 to 10 have no right in respect of the properties in question. Without there being any source of title, they got the katha transferred in their names by inheritance, which was challenged by the father of the present petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner. 5. Smt.Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that respondents No.5 to 10 have no right in respect of the properties in question. Without there being any source of title, they got the katha transferred in their names by inheritance, which was challenged by the father of the present petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner considering the entire material on record allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation entries made in favour of respondents No.5 to 10. The said order ought not to have been interfered with by the Deputy Commissioner, by virtue of which, the respondents may take advantage of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and alienate the properties. She further contended that the grant made in favour of the grandfather on 30.06.1964 has not been challenged by any of the respondents. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in passing the order dated 06.06.2015. The Deputy Commissioner ought not to have interfered with the order of the Assistant Commissioner and sought to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate on taking notice to respondents No.1 to 4 sought to justify the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner directing the Assistant Commissioner to ensure the genuineness of the grant made in favour of Gopalappa and proceed to pass orders in accordance with law. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioners are mainly claiming their rights in respect of the properties in question, based on the alleged occupancy rights granted in the year 1964 i.e. on 30.06.1964. It is the specific case of the petitioners that respondents No.5 to 10 who have no right over the properties in question had approached the authorities and got the katha transferred in their names and got mutation entries entered in their names based on inheritance. The Assistant Commissioner, on the appeal filed by Shriramappa has come to the conclusion that the Tahsildar after verifying the genuineness of the grant made in Case No.468/196263 had proceeded to pass orders in accordance with law. When the entries in RRT(D)/CR/ 154/200809 are already made in favour of Respondents No.5 to 7, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have secured the original records from the Land Tribunal or directed the present petitioners to produce the documents to prove the genuineness of the grant made in favour of Gopalappa. When the entries in RRT(D)/CR/ 154/200809 are already made in favour of Respondents No.5 to 7, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have secured the original records from the Land Tribunal or directed the present petitioners to produce the documents to prove the genuineness of the grant made in favour of Gopalappa. But he has expressed doubt regarding granting of occupancy rights in favour of grandfather of the present petitioners and has proceeded to quash the mutation entries made in favour of respondents No.5 to 7 directing the Tahsildar to verify the genuineness of the occupancy rights granted in favour of grandfather of the present petitioners and to proceed in accordance with law. 8. The Deputy Commissioner, considering the entire material on record, was of the considered opinion that before setting aside the mutation entries made in favour of respondents No.5 to 7 under RRT (D)/CR/154/200809, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have verified the genuineness of the grant made. Without verifying the same, quashing of mutation was ordered. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, with a direction to consider the genuineness of the occupancy rights alleged to have granted in favour of grandfather of the present petitioners and proceed in accordance with law. 9. Under the provisions of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the authorities entered the names of the parties only on the source of title mentioned therein and not in doubtful cases. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in setting aside the apprehension of the petitioners that, in pursuance of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the respondents will take advantage and tried to alienate the properties. When the matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, if there is any alienation by the respondents, it is always open for the petitioners to file necessary application before the Assistant Commissioner for the appropriate relief. 10. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to verify the genuineness of the original grant of occupancy rights in favour of Gopalappa, grandfather of present petitioners on 30.06.1964 is just and proper. The petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are permitted to file necessary application before the Assistant Commissioner to protect their rights over the properties in question. The Assistant Commissioner shall dispose off the application as expeditiously as possible, subject to cooperate of both the parties to the lis. Ordered accordingly.