ORDER : E.S.INDIRESH, J. These writ petitions are filed by petitioners challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru in RA.No.309/2015, RA.No.310/2015 and RA.No.73/2018, confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru in RP.No.59/2021, RP.No.58/2021 and RP.No.57/2021 dated 20.04.2022 respectively, rejecting the claim made by petitioners and directed petitioners herein to approach the Civil Court for resolution of dispute with regard to the subject land. 2. The brief facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication that, petitioners have averred in the writ petitions that, one Sri. Bomme Gowda and late Sri. Rajappa (father of petitioners) have purchased the land in question from one Sri. Govinde Gowda as per the registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.1972 (Annexure-A). Sri. Rache Gowda has purchased the property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.1972 from Sri. Govinde Gowda insofar as 16½ guntas is concerned in the scheduled property as per Annexure-B. It is also stated that, the brother of Sri. Govinde Gowda - Sri. Puttaswamy has executed a Released Deed dated 28.06.1972 (Annexure-C) in favour of his brother Sri. Puttaswamy. It is stated in the writ petitions that the survey number mentioned in the Sale Deeds have been mistakenly stated as Sy.No.268/4 instead of Sy.No. 268/1. It is also stated in the writ petitions that, the private respondents herein (Branch of Sri. Govinde Gowda) have filed O.S.No.307/1987 against Sri. Bomme Gowda, Sri. Rajappa and Sri. Rache Gowda, before the Civil Court seeking relief of injunction, which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 27.09.1994 and thereafter, the said judgment and decree was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.131/1995 and thereafter, the judgment and decree confirmed by this Court in RSA No.2050/2005 dated 23.03.2006 (Annexure-F). 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, since there is a mistake in the survey number mentioned in the Sale Deed that would not come in the way of respondents-Authorities to make Khata in favour of petitioners by rectifying the survey number, since the boundaries remain as it is and discrepancy is with regard to the survey number is concerned and therefore, petitioners herein have presented these writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru and the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru. 4. Heard Sri. Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 5. 4. Heard Sri. Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, by referring to the order passed by this Court in RSA No.2050/2005 (Annexure-F) at paragraph No.9, that, an observation has been made by this Court by rejecting the appeal preferred by the private-respondents herein that they have made a mistake in mentioning the schedule in the registered Sale Deed and in that view of the matter, the private-respondents have to be relegated to establish their right in respect of the subject land is concerned and as such, he submitted that the findings recorded by both respondents- Authorities requires to be set aside in these writ petitions. 6. It is also argued by Sri. V.K. Narayana Sharma, learned counsel appearing for petitioners by referring to the findings recorded by respondents-Authorities that, there is no impediment for respondents-Authorities to rectify the survey number since the various Sale Deeds are being made by the erstwhile owner - Sri. Govinde Gowda in favour of the private respondents herein and hence, it is contended that, the findings recorded by respondents-Authorities relegating the petitioners herein to approach the Civil Court for rectification of Sale Deed requires to be interfered in these writ petitions. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of NARASIMHA SHASTRY VS. MANGESHA DEVARU reported in ILR 1988 Kar 554 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUBHAGA AND OTHERS Vs. SHOBHA AND OTHERS reported in (2006)5 SCC 466 and contended that, even if there was any discrepancies insofar as mentioning the survey number in the Sale Deed is concerned, the boundaries has to be looked into as the boundaries shall prevail in respect of the discrepancies in the survey number and accordingly, submitted that the finding recorded by respondents-Authorities requires to be interfered with in these writ petitions. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents and learned High Court Government Pleader sought to justify the impugned orders passed by respondents-Authorities. 8. Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty K, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.22 and 23 made available the order passed by this Court in the case of K.JAYAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents and learned High Court Government Pleader sought to justify the impugned orders passed by respondents-Authorities. 8. Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty K, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.22 and 23 made available the order passed by this Court in the case of K.JAYAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. TAHSILDAR AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 1999 Kar 3250 and the judgment of this Court in the case of S.HALAPPA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIMOGA AND OTHERS reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Kar 337 and contended that, in similar circumstances, this Court has relegated the parties to rectify the Sale Deed as per Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and in that view of the matter, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents that the writ petitions requires to be dismissed. 9. In the light of submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on careful examination of the finding recorded by both the Authorities would indicate that, the subject matter in the writ petitions is with regard to the land bearing Sy.No.268/1 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas and in Sy.No.268/4 measuring 33 guntas. On careful examination of the writ papers, it is indicate that, the original owner Sri. Govinde Gowda had sold 33 guntas in Sy.No.268/4 of Hebbalu Village, Mysuru Taluk, in favour of Sri. Bomme Gowda and Sri. Rajappa as per the registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.1972. It is also forthcoming that, the said Sri. Govinde Gowda had sold an extent of 16½ guntas in favour of Sri. Rache Gowda as per the registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.1972. After the execution of the registered Sale Deed, the revenue records have been modified accordingly. 10. However, the private-respondents have made an application to respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Mysuru to modify the mutation in respect of the subject land, which has ultimately culminated in Appeal and Revision before the respondents-Authorities. 11. Having taken note of factual aspects of the record, as there is mistake in the registered Sale Deed said to have been executed by the said Sri. However, the private-respondents have made an application to respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Mysuru to modify the mutation in respect of the subject land, which has ultimately culminated in Appeal and Revision before the respondents-Authorities. 11. Having taken note of factual aspects of the record, as there is mistake in the registered Sale Deed said to have been executed by the said Sri. Govinde Gowda in favour of petitioners herein, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the revenue Authorities is just and proper in which the revenue Authorities cannot go into adjudicate the right or title of the parties in question and therefore, I am of the view that, both the respondents-Authorities on detailed consideration, have arrived at a conclusion by relegating the petitioners to rectify the schedule in the registered Sale Deed, particularly the survey number. Though the learned counsel appearing for petitioners has strenuously contended that, there is no necessity insofar as the rectification of the Sale Deed is concerned even if such being the case, the respondents have to be relegated to file suit seeking rectification of the Sale Deed and also stated that the boundaries in the Sale Deed prevail in the circumstances of the case, however, the judgment of this Court in the case of the S. Halappa (supra), under similar circumstances, relegated the parties to rectify the Sale Deed under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 . 12. I have also carefully considered the paragraph No.9 in RSA No.2050/2005 dated 23.03.2006 (Annexure-F) wherein, this Court has observed with regard to discrepancy in respect of mentioning of the survey number had to be rectified by petitioners herein and no efforts have been made thereunder. 13. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that as both the respondents-Authorities have held against petitioners herein, this Court is having limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.