ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 in Revenue Appeal No.71/2015-16, vide Annexure-F. 2. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.108A measuring 1.98 acres situated at Siddarampura village in Siruguppa Taluk, Ballari district. Originally, the land in question was standing in the name of one Harijan Maremma who is mother-in-law of the petitioner No.1 and mother of the petitioner No.2. The said land was granted to Smt. Harijan Maremma in the year 1965. Even though the land was granted to Smt. Harijan Maremma, in the record of rights, the name of Smt. Harijan Lachuma Sirigeri was entered in column No.9 and name of Smt. Harijan Maremma is shown in column No.12. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the name of Smt. Harijan Lachuma Sirigeri has been inadvertently entered in the record of rights. Even though the petitioners are the owners of the land in question, the respondent No.6 got mutated her name in the revenue records. Against which, the petitioners filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner. The rd respondent allowed the appeal of the petitioner, set-aside the mutation order No.4/79-80 and MR No.16/2008-09 and directed to enter the name of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.6 filed revenue appeal No.71/2015-16 before the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.2 by order dated 31.10.2019 allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and ordered to restore the MR No.4/1979-80 and MR No.16/2008-09. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order at Annexure-F dated 31.10.2019 is wholly arbitrary and same is the result of non-appreciation of the material on record. The land in question was granted to the mother-in-law of the petitioner No.1, whereas inadvertently, the name of Smt. Harijan Lachuma Sirigeri was entered. The survey settlement of the year 1966 would disclose that the land in question was standing in the name of Smt. Harijan Maremma in whose favour, the land was granted. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. The survey settlement of the year 1966 would disclose that the land in question was standing in the name of Smt. Harijan Maremma in whose favour, the land was granted. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate points out that the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner rightly allowed the appeal and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court with regard to ownership of the land in question. He refers to the full bench decision of this Court in W.P.No.6872/2013 decided on 24.01.2020 wherein the full bench has held in a similar situation that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate, I am of the view that it is not a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petitioners’ claim that the land in question was granted to Smt. Harijan Maremma in the year 1965. Whereas, the name of Smt. Harijan Lachuma Sirigeri was entered in MR No.4/79-80 and MR No.16/2008-09. The petitioners are claming that the land in question was granted to Smt. Harijan Maremma who is the mother of the petitioner No.2 and mother-in-law of the petitioner No.1. The petitioners are claiming the title through Smt. Harijan Maremma in whose favour the land in question was granted. It is open for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court with regard to their title over the property in question. The full bench of this Court in a decision referred to above has held at para-106 as follows: “DECLARATION 106. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons stated above, we hereby declare that:- (i) The revenue authorities viz., the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties in respect of the immoveable property/properties. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons stated above, we hereby declare that:- (i) The revenue authorities viz., the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties in respect of the immoveable property/properties. It is the exclusive domain of the competent Civil Court to adjudicate the dispute/title in respect of the immoveable property/properties and ultimately if any decree to be passed by the competent Civil Court will be binding on the parties as well as the revenue authorities in the State; (ii) Any order passed by the jurisdictional Tahsildar under the provisions of Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act touches the title in respect of the immoveable properties, there is no need for the aggrieved party to file an appeal/revision before the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner as it is a futile exercise and therefore, the aggrieved party can straightaway approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of title and consequential relief and the judgment and decree to be passed will be binding on the parties to the lis as well as the Revenue Authorities; (iii) Any person aggrieved by the order passed by the jurisdiction Tahsildar exercising powers under the provisions of Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act regarding entries based on the source of title and if there is no dispute with regard to title, then only an appeal/revision can be filed before the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 136(2) and 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.” 9. By following the above decision, I am of the view that the petitioners have to approach the Civil Court with regard to title over the property. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that the revenue authorities cannot decide the issue of title or ownership. As such, the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner directed the both parties to approach the civil Court. The writ petition being devoid of merits is rejected.