ORDER : RAJESH RAI K, J. 1. The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District vide Annexure-'L' and order dated 03.12.2007 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore vide Annexure-'H'. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas of Choodenapura village, Bangalore South Taluk (for brevity, ' subject land ') in favour of Ramakrishnappa, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of other petitioners vide order dated 15.10.1976 and thereafter, the Tahasildar, Bangalore South Taluk has issued occupancy certificate in his favour vide order dated 16.08.1982. Based upon the occupancy certificate, the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk has effected mutation in the name of Ramakrishnappa vide MR.No.12/1994-95 dated 23.02.1994 and ever since, he was in possession and cultivation subject land as absolute owner without there being any interference from anybody. 3. Such being the fact, the defeated claimant late Shaik Bheeramsab has filed a suit for declaration of title against Ramakrishnappa in respect of Sy.No.3/3 in O.S No.173/2000. The said suit came to be dismissed. Subsequent to the same, respondent Nos. 4 to 24 who claims to be the legatees of late Nabi Sab, owner of subject land have also filed a suit for declaration of title in O.S.No.1742/2006 and the same is pending for consideration. 4. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.4 to 24 have also filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for brevity, ' the KLR Act ') challenging the mutation entry in MR.No.12/1994-95 dated 23.02.1994 in RA(S) No.35/2006-07, wherein, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal by order dated 03.12.2007. 5. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, has preferred the revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 136/09-10 and similarly the legal heirs of Late Shaik Bheeramsab have also challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.146/08-09. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the common order clubbing both the revision petitions vide order dated 01.08.2014. According to the petitioners, the said order came to their knowledge only after they received the caveat petition filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 24 before this Court. 6. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the common order clubbing both the revision petitions vide order dated 01.08.2014. According to the petitioners, the said order came to their knowledge only after they received the caveat petition filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 24 before this Court. 6. After verification of the order sheet in the Revision Petitions, the petitioners came to know that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order without due notice and without hearing the parties. As such, Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this court. 7. Heard Sri V.B Shivakumar, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri T. Prakash, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6, 7, 9 to 15. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have erred in allowing the appeal filed by respondent Nos.4 to 24 and thereby directing the Tahsildar to effect the necessary changes in the revenue entries by entering their names in respect of Sy.No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas. He contended that the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk in LRF 1512/74-75 clearly depicts that Ramakrishnappa, father of petitioners 2 to 5, was conferred with occupancy right in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/3. Further, Form No.10 also issued in the name of Ramakrishnappa in respect of Sy.No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas vide order dated 10.08.1982. Accordingly the mutation register also entered in his name in respect of Sy.No.3/3. Thereafter, the RTC entries also reflected the name of Ramakrishnappa from the year 1995 till the year 2008. 9. Further, one Shaik Bheeramsab has filed a suit in O.S.No.1/1998 against Ramakrishnappa seeking a declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the subject land, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the legal heirs of said Shaik Bheeramsab have also filed suit in O.S.No.173/2000 for the similar relief, which came to be dismissed. However, respondent Nos. 4 to 24 who claims to be the legatees of late Nabi Sab, owner of subject land have also filed a suit for declaration of title in O.S.No.1742/2006 and the same is pending for consideration. However, respondent Nos. 4 to 24 who claims to be the legatees of late Nabi Sab, owner of subject land have also filed a suit for declaration of title in O.S.No.1742/2006 and the same is pending for consideration. In such circumstance, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have wrongly passed the impugned orders to enter the name of respondent Nos.4 to 24 in the revenue records in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/3. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 24 (legatees of Nabi Sab) submits that Ramakrishnappa filed Form No.7 in respect of subject land for grant of occupancy right against one Nabi Sab, the owner of subject land. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.10.1976. However, the petitioner has given a statement before the Land Tribunal that he is cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.3/4 measuring 34 guntas and by mistake, he had filed application in respect of Sy.No.3/3 and accordingly, he sought for modification of the order for grant of occupancy right for Sy.No.3/4 measuring 34 guntas. The landlord has also given statement to the said effect. Accordingly, the Tribunal recalled the order dated 15.10.1976 and modified the order by granting occupancy right to the petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/4 measuring 34 guntas instead land bearing Sy.No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas i.e., the subject land. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated in LRF 1512/74-75 for grant of compensation to landlord in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/4 measuring 34 guntas. Later, in the year 1994-95, the mutation entry in MR.12/94-95 was mutated on the basis of LRF order dated 16.08.1982, though no such order was passed by the Land Tribunal. As such, the mutation was entered in the name of the petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/3 inadvertently by the revenue officials based on the initial grant dated 15.10.1976 though the same was modified vide order dated 09.12.1976. By taking undue advantage of the said entry, the petitioner started to claim right over land bearing Sy.No.3/3. By considering all these aspects, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly passed the impugned orders by ordering to enter the mutation and revenue entries in the name of respondent Nos.4 to 24 in respect of Sy.No.3/3. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. By considering all these aspects, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly passed the impugned orders by ordering to enter the mutation and revenue entries in the name of respondent Nos.4 to 24 in respect of Sy.No.3/3. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, so also the documents placed before me. 12. It could be gathered from records, one Nabi Sab is the landlord of land bearing Sy.No.3/3 of Chudenpura village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South. The petitioner- Ramakrishnappa had filed Form No.7 in respect of said land claiming occupancy right in the year 1975 i.e., in LRF 1512/74- 75. The Land Tribunal had granted occupancy right in respect of said land by rejecting his claim in respect of Sy.No.4 vide order dated 15.10.1976. However, on 13.11.1976, the petitioner - Ramakrishnappa had approached the Land Tribunal and gave a statement that he was cultivating land bearing Sy.No.3/4 measuring 34 guntas and mistakenly, he filed application in respect of Sy.No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas. The landlord also gave a statement to that effect. On enquiry by the Land Tribunal, it was revealed in the survey report that said Ramakrishnappa was in cultivation of land bearing Sy.No.3/4. As such, the Land Tribunal modified its order dated 15.10.1976 and granted occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.3/4 measuring 34 guntas vide order dated 09.12.1976. Further, the proceedings were initiated before the Tahsildar for grant of compensation to landlord in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/4 measuring 34 guntas and the applicant Ramakrishnappa had been paid the compensation and Form No.10 was issued in his favour in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/4. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since Form No.10 dated 10.08.1982 and the subsequent mutation and the RTC till the year 2008 were standing in the name of Ramakrishnappa in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/3 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas by virtue of the grant, the respondents have no right over the subject land bearing Sy.No.3/3, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the mutation entry in MR.No.12/94-95 was on the basis of LRF order dated 16.08.1982, which was not available in the file placed by the learned Additional Government Advocate, so also in the entire file placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Further, the order relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in LRF 1512/74-75 dated 30.06.1977 is only in respect of grant of compensation to the landlord and not the order of grant. Further, when there is a specific statement given by the petitioner himself i.e., Ramakrishnappa before the Land Tribunal that he had mistakenly filed Form No.7 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/3, though he was cultivating Sy.No.3/4 and the survey and other reports of the Tahsildar also revealed that he was in cultivation of Sy.No.3/4, which had been affirmed by the landlord, now the petitioners cannot contend that Ramakrishnappa was cultivating Sy.No.3/3. The Land Tribunal, after considering these aspects, has modified the earlier order and granted occupancy right to the petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/4 instead of Sy.No.3/3. 14. Further, a civil suit in OS.1742/2006 is also filed by the legal heirs of the landlord Nabi Sab for declaration against Ramakrishnappa and the same is pending. In such circumstance, in my considered view, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly passed the impugned orders, which do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit and same is dismissed.