CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a lessee of government land in S. No. 184 of Jyothigondanapura village, Chamarajanagar Taluk, in accordance with the lease granted in his favour on the 1st day of January, 1983. The lease in question entitles him to quarry black dyke or black granite. He has been carrying on that activity since the grant of the lease and he is now aggrieved by the two orders made by the tahsildar, Chamarajanagar Taluk, purporting to be in exercise of his power under sec. 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the act) as well as Sec. 94 (2) of that Act. The said orders are at Annexures G and H respectively. ( 2 ) IN the statement of objections filed, it is asserted that the impugned orders in question have been passed because the petitioner has been carrying on quarrying operations on government land falling out-side his leased area and therefore the fine has been imposed in accordance with Sec. 73 as well as under Sec. 94 of the Act. ( 3 ) THAT position unfortunately is not reflected in the orders themselves which are impugned. The impugned orders in the first of the petitions is as follows :"you have unauthorisedly occupied the land to the extent of 8 guntas in survey No. 180 adjacent to your quarry in survey No. 184 and used the said extent of land for dumping quarry wastes without obtaining permission. . . . "similarly, in respect of the other order in the second of the petitions it is stated:"for the fast five years and in the course of your activities you have been dumping quarrying wastes in the encroached area of 60 guntas of survey no. 184 in Jyothigowdanapura village, chamarajanagar Taluk" ( 4 ) IT is well settled that no affidavit filed subsequently may have the effect of modifying or supplementing the impugned orders. The impugned order must sustain itself on the words and expressions used in that order and not by words and expressions supplied by affidavits filed thereafter. ( 5 ) SEC. 96 of the Act provides for levy of fine when an owner of agricultural land diverts the use of the land to non-agricultural purposes. The impugned order must sustain itself on the words and expressions used in that order and not by words and expressions supplied by affidavits filed thereafter. ( 5 ) SEC. 96 of the Act provides for levy of fine when an owner of agricultural land diverts the use of the land to non-agricultural purposes. In other words, in order to assume jurisdiction the Deputy commissioner alone may pass an order only on beino, satisfied that the owner of the agricultural land has diverted his agricultural land for non-agricultural use without obtaining the permission under sec. 95 of the Act. Therefore, there is clear lack of jurisdiction as the use of the land to which the petitioner has put is not his own land but the land adjoining, which he is said to have encroached. Therefore, not being the owner, he cannot be accused of diverting its use from agricultural to non-agricultural use. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, the order impugned in w. P. No. 4888/1987 suffers from want of jurisdiction. ( 7 ) SIMILARLY, in the case of the other petition where the order made under sec. 94 (2) of the Act is challenged, it is the Deputy Commissioner who is required to pass an order if certain conditions are satisfied and those conditions if one may briefly stated are that a person should have unauthorisedly entered upon the occupation of any land set apart for any special purpose or he must enter upon the occupation of any land which has not been alienated and which remains unoccupied by any other person. Even a person who occupies and uses such land after his right to use such land has ceased will be subject to the rigour of that provision. It is not the case of the respon- dent-Tahsildar that it was established by a procedure known to law that the lessee of a part of the survey number in question had occupied for purpose of mining activity more than the area leased now. It is seen from the lease-deed which is produced at Annexure-A that the leased area is bounded on all sides by land comprised in the same survey number. Therefore, it is obvious that the lessee: cannot enter upon the leased land except through the approach available from the land comprised out-side such area in the same survey number. The extent of the land leased is 50 acres. Therefore, it is obvious that the lessee: cannot enter upon the leased land except through the approach available from the land comprised out-side such area in the same survey number. The extent of the land leased is 50 acres. Therefore, encroachment out-side that 50 acres has to be determined by proper enquiry and measurement and after notice to the person accused of encroachment. The order is made in violation of the rules of natural justice. ( 8 ) FOR the above two reasons, the order in the second of the petitions is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed Rule will accordingly issue and be made absolute. --- *** --- .