ll ri . out 61 ycr, on of I. te I U is1T a, e- i q t o ?2O/1—1, I, Lay Out, Mimi — wr ppa Block, Chikj , t3 1 r — 40 1, I e ciii ‘‘ uty Coiiii ion C in1), ar lor i I r ir 2 - i t r Crr I S sl r, ir u a 4 r I I 4 4 % it ii 44 4 II 1 1’ 4 ‘I a. nv ) * 1 3 (91 1 I • 4 1 • 3 ft 4* j .4 4* I 4 • %Ob 0 1 4 ) I II II t I 44.14 II 6 4 .•‘ 4 4 (1 I 4 4 • *4 a (4 4 * :2, ‘I 1k I I 4, 44 1 • El * ‘1 4 * 1 r 4 •t • I I, .3 I’ I a 4 ) 0 14 4 4 • r ‘ 4 40 4 1 1 p a ) 4 4 C • I •1 ‘I TI b I 4 3 1 t • • • a. ‘ L ‘ 1’ * 4 I a 4 4 • 0 • yr I • 4. ‘1 • • $ I 41 J — 4 a 1 • • 1 4 4. 1 •1 I —I ‘ I C C e • • p It’ • I 4 4 4 — 3 1 • —3— ORDER The petitioner challenges AnneziresE and F orders. The pett1oner seems to have complained regarding the mutation effected with respect to his properties in Sy.No.160/4, 176/1, 176/7 and 212/2. The objections filed by the petitioner were rejected by Anne ire—h order, He carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Taheildar to conduct an enquiry under Section 140 of the Kai’nataka Land Revenue Act and decide the dispute. Thereafter the dispute by the petitioner was upheld by Anne xure-C order. That order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bangalore, by the 4th respondent. By order dated 27—2—1989 that appeal was rejected. A further appeal was filed by the 4th respondent which was allowed by order dated 18-8—1989, as per Annexure—F. That order was challenged by the p’titioner before the Tribunal which was dismissed by Anne re—F order. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the orders Annexures-! and F are illepal; that the powers exercised by the authorities are illegal and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 3. 1 —4— 3. I have heard !r.K.Shivaji Rao, learned counsel for the petitioir, At the outset it may be stated that there is no power conferred under Section 140 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act on the Taheildar to enquire Into the complaint made by the petitioner. The complaint made by the etitioner as can be seen from Anne,ire-B is: “Sri.P.M,Ramaswamy represented challenge petition to this Office against the Order No,ADLR (SAS) PTN, 3/81—82 dated 29—10—1981 passed by the ADLR, Bangalore.” 4. The complaint in essence is that the mutation effected in the name of respondent No.4 is an incorrect mutation and that the mutation must be corrected. That, of course, is totally beyond the scope of Sec tion 140(2) of the Land Revenue Acts Section 140(2) of the Act reads as follows: “If any dispute arises concerning the boundary of a holding which has not been surveyed or if at any time after completion of a survey, a dis pute arises concerning the boundary or a survey number, a sub-division of a survey number or a holding, the Taheildar shall decide the dispute having due igard to the land records rPt if - if they afford satisfactory evidence of the boundary previously fixed, and if not, after such inauiry as he consi ders necessary.” 5. The dispute now raised by the petitioner is in the nature of an entry made in the Mutation Register, Even if the Tahsildar exercises the power under Sec tion 140(2) and conducts re—survey of the land to ascertain the mutation effected is correct or not, Section 140 does not confer power on the Taheildar to issue an order in the nature that he has already exercised. Merely because an authority directed the Telisildar to exercise the power under Section 140(2) of the Act, he cannot usurp a non—existent power. In the orders made, the illegality ooinitted by the Tahaildar has been set at right, By issuing a writ of certiorari by this court in this petition ohallengin Annexures-F and F orders, it will be perpetuating an illegality. For that purpose, this court cannot invoke its jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE Pkc, 19 / h. 4