H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) IN writ Petition No. 30558 of 1982 and connected cases, this Court passed an order on 15-3-1983, a copy of which is Annexure-D, quashing the direction issued by the Assistant commissioners to the Tahsildars to take possession of the lands and to deliver them to the grantees, but dismissed the writ petitions in all other respects with an observation that the order of this Court did not prevent the Assistant Commissioners from executing their orders in accordance with law. The order in those writ petitions became final since it was not challenged before the Supreme Court though there was a grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal under Art. 132 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the Deputy Commissioner who is respondent-3 herein heard the appeals filed by respondent-4 and 5 without notice to the petitioner and directed the Assistant commissioner who is respondent-2 herein to hold a fresh enquiry and to dispose of the cases on merits. Thereafter, the Assistant commissioner passed orders rejecting the applications for resumption and restoration of the lands. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by both the Deputy Commissioner and the assistant Commissioner. ( 3 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner before he passed the orders under Annexures-E and e-1, did not notify the petitioner and did not afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing thereby rules of natural justice came to be violated. The other contention is that the said orders are laconic, tailor-made and cryptic orders intended to suit all occasions irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case with only the operative portion being filled up every time an order was passed by the same Deputy Commissioner. The most atrocious lapse is to be seen to be believed. It is to be found in paras 2 and 4 of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. The names of the Counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents are uniformly the same irrespective of their actual appearance manifesting total lack of care and attention in passing an order as an appellate authority. Simitar orders of the same Deputy Commissioner were called into question before this court on several earlier occasions. The names of the Counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents are uniformly the same irrespective of their actual appearance manifesting total lack of care and attention in passing an order as an appellate authority. Simitar orders of the same Deputy Commissioner were called into question before this court on several earlier occasions. ( 4 ) THE further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner which is an offshoot of the order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner has to necessarily fall to the ground since the power exercised by the Deputy Commissioner flouting the principles of natural justice is itself unsustainable. ( 5 ) IN order to assure myself that there may be at least some redeeming features in the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioners, i made a vain search in the lengthy orders of the Deputy Commissioner. But to my dismay, I have discovered more serious lapses totally out of tune with the points in issue, I am constrained to observe that the deputy Commissioner has desecrated the appellate power conferred upon him by the statute by indiscriminate use of irrelevant expression and has left gaping holes in a loose texture of words recklessly employed in order convey what is not relevant in the context. The orders of the Deputy Commissioner to put it mildly are ludicrous. I have struck down several similar orders of the same Deputy Commissioner with stringent observations. But the same orders are rolling out of the assembly - line mechanically and regularly. All that could be said is that the Deputy Commissioner has exploited to the maximum capacity the cyclostyled machine which was at his disposal. The orders do not speak of either law or substance. I have no hesitation in quashing orders of this kind. More important is the factor that the Deputy Commissioner has not understood the importance of the wellknown principles of natural justice which require that a person should be heard before an order is passed against him. That no right of audience was conceded to the petitioner is the matter of admission on record in the statement of objections filed by respondents- 4 and 5. That no right of audience was conceded to the petitioner is the matter of admission on record in the statement of objections filed by respondents- 4 and 5. No quasi judicial authority could afford to pass an order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to a person likely to be affected by the order and, in this case, the contrary has happened. On this ground also, the impugned orders of the deputy Commissioner deserve to be quashed. ( 6 ) THE order to the Assistant Commissioner is a product of the order of remand wrongly made by the Deputy Commissioner and, in turn, it also has to be declared as unsustainable. ( 7 ) IN the result, for the foregoing reasons, i allow the writ petitions and quash the impugned under Annexures 'a', 'e' and 'e-1'. The case is remitted back to the Deputy commissioner with a direction to notify the concerned parties, afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing liberty to adduce evidence if they deem fit and then dispose of the case afresh on merits and in accordance with law within a time limit of ninety days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the Deputy Commissioner to consider and decide the question of maintainability of the appeal if any such issue is raised before him. ( 8 ) IN these writ petitions, the petitioner also has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 5a of the Karnataka Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. This question is left open in view of the relief already granted in this case. I may also direct the petitioner to furnish court fee of Rs. 100/- in respect of the challenge made to the order of the Deputy Commissioner bearing No. PTCL. 414/84-85 dated 13-6-1986, a certified copy of which has been furnished today as annexure-El. The second writ petition will have to be numbered as W. P. No. 12545-A of 1988 by the office. ( 9 ) PENDING disposal of the appeal, the receiver will continue to discharge the duty assigned to him by virtue of the order of this court dated 2-11-1988. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .