JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Art. 227 directed against the appellate order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal" 110/70, affirming the confirmstion of a revenue sale made by the Assistant Commissioner karwar. ( 2 ) K. D. Nagarker, respondent 5 was the owner of agricultural land bearing Block No. 101 measuring 3 acres 39 guntas situate at Sambrani village Haliyal Taluk. He was found due in payment of Tagai loans in a sum of Rs. 2,025, for the recovery of which his land was brought to sale and the sale was held on 25-10-1966. N. T. Bhagavathker, respondent 3 was the auction purchaser ( 3 ) G. D. Navarker, the petitioner before us claiming to be the person interested in the land deposited the arrears due from K. D. Nagarker on 23-1-1967 at the Taluk Treasury, Haliyal and made an application putporting to be under, S. 176 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964 (shortly called the Act') before the Assistant Commissioner at Karwar. The said application was made on 24-1-1967. ( 4 ) BY the facts above stated, it is seen that the deposit was made on the 90th day from the date of the sale, and the application to set aside the sale was made on the 91st day. The Assistant Commissioner without hearing the petitioner rejected his application on the ground that the deposit made was beyond the period provided by S. 176 of the Act. The appeal against the said order preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the mysore Revenue. Appellate Tribunal holding that the application and the deposit both were barred by time. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner canned be stated to be a person holding an interest in the land within the meaning of sub-sec. (1) of Section 176. ( 5 ) THE said orders are challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Article 227. Appellate Tribunal holding that the application and the deposit both were barred by time. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner canned be stated to be a person holding an interest in the land within the meaning of sub-sec. (1) of Section 176. ( 5 ) THE said orders are challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Article 227. ( 6 ) SECTION 176 of the Act provides : (1) Where immoveable property has been sold under this Chapter, the defaulter, or any person owning such property or holding an interest therein may at any time within ninety days of the date of sale apply in the prescribed manner to the Deputy Commissioner to have the sale set aside; (a) On the ground of some material irregularity or mistake or fraud resulting in loss or injury to him, or, (b) On his depositing in the Deputy Commissioner's Office the amount of the arrear specified in the proclamation of sale the cost of the sale and for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per centum of the purchase money. (2) On an application made under clause (a) of sub-sec. (1), the deputy Commissioner shall, if he is satisfied after a summary enquiry that there has been some material irregularity, mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, set aside the sale and direct a fresh sale provided that no sale shall be set aside on the ground of any irregularity or mistake, unless it is proved that the applicant has sustained loss or injury as a result of such irregularity or mistake. (3) On an application with the required deposit being made under clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) within the period specified therein, the deputy Commissioner shall make an order setting aside the sale; provided that if more persons than one have made deposits and applied under this section, the application of the first depositor or in case all the depositors agree to the application of any other depositer being accepted, the application of such depositor, shall be accepted. " section 177 provides : confirmation of sale-If on the expiration of ninety days from the date of sale of any immoveable property, no application has been made for setting aside the sale or if any such application has been made and rejected, the Deputy. " section 177 provides : confirmation of sale-If on the expiration of ninety days from the date of sale of any immoveable property, no application has been made for setting aside the sale or if any such application has been made and rejected, the Deputy. Commissioner shall make an order confirming the sale; provided that for reasons to be recorded, 'the Deputy Commissioner may set aside the sale subject to such conditions as he may deem proper, notwithstanding that no application therefor has been made, or on grounds other than those alleged in any application which has been made and rejected. ( 7 ) THE petitioner in his application has stated that he has an agree ment in his favour for the purchase of the land in question and the sale therefore should be set aside. On these averments we may assume that he is a person holding an interest in the land within the meaning of its expresssion under sub-sec. (1) of S. 176. But he has"to satisfy the" other requirements. It was not his case that the sale was vitiated by material irregularity mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting it: His Case was that the sale should be set aside because he has deposited; the entire arrears specified in the proclamation of sale. For that, he must have filed his application to set aside the sale with the required deposit with in 90 days of the date of the sale. Sri Savanur for the petitioner contended that the petitioner made the deposit within the period and that was sufficient for the Assistant Commissioner to set aside the sale under sub-sec. (3) of s. 176. We may agree with Counsel that the deposit was within the period provided by law, but that by itself "does not confer jurisdiction on the authority to set aside the sale under sub-sec. (3) of S. 176. In order to attract the said sub-section, there should be an application for the purpose, at any time, within 90 days of the date of sale. Mere depositing the amount wihout an application is not sufficient. In the instant case, as the application was not made within the period of ninety days from the date of sale, the petitioner has no right to have 'the sale set aside, under subsection (3) of Section 176. Mere depositing the amount wihout an application is not sufficient. In the instant case, as the application was not made within the period of ninety days from the date of sale, the petitioner has no right to have 'the sale set aside, under subsection (3) of Section 176. ( 8 ) THE Assistant Commissioner did not hear the petitioner before he rejected his application. In our view the petitioner was not entitled to a hearing when his application was ex-facie barred by time, ( 9 ) LASTLY it was contended that if the Assistant Commissioner had heard the petitioner, he would have got an opportunity to request the assistant Commissioner to exercise his suo motu power vested in him by the proviso to S. 177 of the Act. Suffice it to state that that power is to be exercised in the interest of justice and subject to such conditions as the authority may deem proper. It does not confer a right on the petitioner to ask the Assistant Commissioner to invoke that power. The action of the Assistant Commissioner in rejecting the application of the petitioner and confirming the sale, prima facie shows that he was not inclined to exercise his power under the proviso to S. 177 of the Act. ( 10 ) IN the result, we see no merit in any of the contentions urged for ihe petitioner. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .