G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition dispute relates to a plot measuring 30 x 30' in survey No. 292-b of moka village, classified as village house site', which is hereinafter referred to as 'the house site'. The said house site was granted to the petitioner by the tahsildar on 17/18-1-1980. Respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by the said order of grant preferred an appeal before the assistant commissioner. On 31-3-1981 the assistant commissioner set aside the grant made in favour of the petitioner. Against the said Order, petitioner went in appeal before the deputy commissioner which was numbered as rev / rrt / 34 / 81-82 r 10. On 30-6-1981 the deputy commissioner passed an interim in the following terms :"the orders passed by the assistant commissioner, bellary in appeal No. V. h. s. 44 of 1979-80, dated 31-3-1981 are stayed until further orders from this court". while the appeal before the deputy commissioner was pending with the said interim order in force, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner the special deputy commissioner, bellary passed a fresh grant order dated 24-5-1984 (annexure b) granting house site in favour of respondent No. 4. Petitioner immediately challenged this order of grant before the tribunal and obtained an interim order of stay. But the tribunal by its order dated 27-11-1990 (annexure c) dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of grant made in favour of respondent No. 4 by taking a view that xx the interim order passed by the deputy commissioner in appeal did not divest the special deputy commissioner of his power of granting the house site in question in favour of respondent No. 4. It also took the view that the petitioner had no vested right to get a grant in his favour. ( 2 ) THE question raised at the bar for consideration is whetherin view of the said order passed by the appellate authority staying the operation of the assistant commissioner's Order, the special deputy commissioner could have granted the land in favour of respondent No. 4. It cannot be disputed that staying of the operation of the order of the assistant commissioner in a statutory appeal resulted in revival of the order of grant made in favour of the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that staying of the operation of the order of the assistant commissioner in a statutory appeal resulted in revival of the order of grant made in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, so long that grant remained operative, no authority under the land grant rules could have made a second grant thereof, because under the rules, grant can be made only of a land which still vests in the government. This legal consequence has been completely lost sight of by the tribunal. ( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY, the order of the special deputy commissioner (annexure b) and that of the tribunal are set aside. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the fourth respondent has brought tomy notice a final order dated 4th April 1988 passed by the deputy commissioner in the appeal filed by the petitioner referred to above. From this order it appears that the deputy commissioner has dismissed the appeal as infructuous in view of the fact that the land has already been granted during the pendency of the said appeal. In my opinion, since I have held that the grant made was without the authority of law, the order of the deputy commissioner dated 4th April 1988 also quashed, with a direction to the respondent deputy commissioner to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law. ( 5 ) WRIT petition thus stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. --- *** --- .