has been in possession of the said land. The said land which was initially agriculture in nature is presently, converted for non-agricultural residential purpose. At this juncture, when the petitioner has made a request to respondent No.3 - the Planning Authority, no action has been taken by respondent No.3 and it is contended that in the light of the letter issued by respondent No.2, permission cannot be granted. The records also reveal that though the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, has filed an affidavit stating that there appears to be an interpolation in the original revenue records, it is not denied that the revenue Authorities themselves have accepted those revenue records and have acted upon the same. The petitioner and her predecessor-in-title, have, since 1982, have been permitted by the Authorities concerned to act as owners of the property. Under the said circumstances, if the State is of the opinion that fraud was committed in obtaining the grant from the Land Tribunal in the year 1982 or that the order of the Land Tribunal is
