ORDER : (E.S. INDIRESH, J.) In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure-K) passed by Respondent No.1 and order dated 13.12.2022 in Appeal No.251/2021- 22 (Annexure-H) passed by Respondent No.2 interalia sought for direction to the respondent to rectify the discrepancies in the revenue records produced at Annexures-C & C1 respectively. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner has purchased the land to an extent of 31 guntas in Sy.No.382/1 of Belluru Village, Belluru Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District as per the registered Sale Deed dated 08.02.2001. It is further stated in the petition that pursuant to the execution of the sale deed, the survey was conducted at the instance of Respondent Nos.5 to 18 and without hearing the petitioner and as such, an extent of 18 guntas of land was reduced in respect of the petitioner is concerned and the same is rectified in the survey sketch in respect of Sy.No.382/1 (Annexures-C & C1). Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has preferred appeal before the Respondent No.2 under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act as per Annexure-F. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has filed memo before the Respondent No.2 stating that the appeal be dismissed as settled out of the Court and pursuant to the memo filed by the petitioner herein, the Respondent No.2 by order dated 13.12.2022, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that the impugned sketch at Annexures-C & C1 has been passed without hearing the petitioner and as such, feeling aggrieved by the order at Annexure-H, the petitioner has preferred revision petition before the Respondent No.1 in Revision Petition No.265/2022-23. The Respondent No.1 vide order dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure-K), dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. Heard Shri.Gangadharappa.A.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri.Siddharth Baburao, learned AGA appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri.Bhargava.D.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.13 to 22. 4. The Respondent No.1 vide order dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure-K), dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. Heard Shri.Gangadharappa.A.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri.Siddharth Baburao, learned AGA appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri.Bhargava.D.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.13 to 22. 4. Shri.Gangadharappa.A.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the settlement and land records and submitted that, the petitioner has purchased an extent of 31 guntas out of total extent of 3 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.382/1 of Belluru Village, Belluru Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District and thereafter, in view of the orders passed by Respondent-Authority at Annexures-C & C1, without hearing the petitioner, land to an extent of 18 guntas was reduced from 31 guntas and as such, it is contended that the petitioner has approached Respondent No.2 in Appeal No.251/2021-22 as per Annexure-H. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further, contended that the petitioner has filed a memo as per Annexure-G stating that the petitioner has sought for dismissal of the appeal as 'not pressed'. However, the petitioner has filed the application before the Respondent No.2 to revive the order dated 13.12.2022, passed by Respondent No.2 based on the memo filed by the petitioner herein. However, the said application was dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, he has filed the revision petition in R.P.No.265/2022-23 (Annexure-K) before the first respondent and the first respondent herein had committed an error in passing the impugned order at Annexure-K without considering the fact that the petitioner has not been heard by the original authority, i.e., Respondent No.2 while passing the order. Hence, he sought for interference of this Court and submitted that as the impugned order at Annexure-K has been passed without granting fair opportunity to the petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner herein has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal as the matter settled out of the Court, however, based on the Sale Deed said to have been executed on 08.02.2001 wherein the petitioner herein has purchased to an extent of 31 guntas out of 3.25 acres in Sy.No.382/1 of Belluru Village, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District. 5. 5. Per contra, Shri.Bhargava.D.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.13 to 22, invited the attention of the Court to the memo filed by the petitioner before the second respondent as per Annexure- G and submitted that the petitioner has not sought for liberty to file a fresh petition nor has challenged the same, and therefore, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.13 to 22 places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARGUJA TRANSPORT SERVICE Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, M.P.M GWALIOR AND OTHERS , (1987)1 SCC 5 and contended that as the petitioner has not sought for leave to file fresh petition and therefore, the impugned order passed at Annexure-K is required to be confirmed as the said order has been passed by Respondent No.1 based on the records produced by the revenue authorities. 6. Shri.Siddharth Baburao, learned AGA appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 sought to justify the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2 on the similar lines as argued by Shri.Bhargava.D.Bhat, learned counsel appearing fro Respondent Nos.13 to 22. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased an extent of 31 guntas out of 3.25 acres of land in bearing Sy.No.382/1 of Belluru Village, Nagamangala Taluk. It is forthcoming from the writ petition that Respondent No.3 has passed the orders at Annexures-C & C1, whereby, it is stated that the remaining land, to an extent of 18 guntas has been shown in the proceedings at Annexure-C1. Feeling aggrieved by the reduction of the land in question, the petitioner herein has preferred appeal before the Respondent No.2 in Appeal No.251/2021-22. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, as the petitioner has filed a memo at Annexure-G seeking dismissal of the appeal as 'not pressed', stating that the lis between the parties has been settled out of the Court and based on the memo, the Respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure-H). The said order has been questioned before Respondent No.1 as per Annexure-J and the first respondent herein by order dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure-K) dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner herein. 8. The said order has been questioned before Respondent No.1 as per Annexure-J and the first respondent herein by order dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure-K) dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner herein. 8. Though Shri.Bhargava.D.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.13 to 22 contended that, since the memo is being filed by the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the appeal as 'not pressed' and petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate his rights before the revenue authorities, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.13 to 22, in view of the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, undisputably, the land purchased by the petitioner is to an extent of 31 guntas as per the registered Sale Deed dated 08.02.2001. The reason for, filing a memo at Annexure-G by the petitioner is as to the fact that, the petitioner has entered into a compromise with the contesting parties. However, it appears that the same has not resulted in execution of the compromise between the parties and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the petitioner that, the petitioner has to be given an opportunity by Respondent No.2 to agitate his rights, in accordance with law. It is forthcoming from the parties as arrayed at Annexure-H, wherein Respondent Nos.13 to 22 herein are not parties. In that view of the matter, it is open for the Respondent Nos.13 to 22 to file an application before the Respondent No.2 and to agitate their rights, in accordance with law. If such an application is filed by Respondent Nos.13 to 22 herein, the Respondent No.2 shall hear them before passing any order on merits in this regard. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 13.12.2022 produced at Annexure-H and order dated 28.12.2023 by Respondent Nos.2 & 1 respectively are hereby set aside;