G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE question involved in this case is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner has any authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short, the Act) and the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (in short, the Rules) to annul the grant of any land made by Tahsildar in gross disregard of the relevant Rules. ( 2 ) THE relevant undisputed facts giving rise to the question involved may be stated in short: the respondent-Tahsildar by his order dated 15-7-1978 granted 1 acre 2 gunthas of land out of Survey No. 36 of Sanyasikodamogge village and issued Saguvali Chit on 25-7-1978. This land was under the unauthorised cultivation of one Rudrappa. He being a sufficient holder and not being authorised for regularisation in terms of Order No. 105 AGP77 dated 1/09/1977 was evicted from the land immediately thereafter without following the statutory procedure. This order as noticed by the Deputy Commissioner in his order Annexure-A does not speak as to whether the land was regularised under the aforesaid Government Order or had been granted under the provisions of the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner having learnt about the said fact initiated an enquiry, recorded evidence of the Tahsildar and the unauthorised occupant Rudrappa, Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector and the present petitioner. Thereafter, on hearing the concerned parties annulled the grant on the ground that since the petitioner was not under unauthorised cultivation prior to 1977-78, no grant could have been made in her favour pursuant to the Government Order dated 1/09/1977 referred to above. He also found that after eviction of Rudrappa, the land was not brought under the availability list as required under Rule 3 nor the procedure nor the provisions of Rules 4, 5, 6 and 24 were followed. As such, by his order Annexure-B he set aside the order of the Tahsildar granting land to the petitioner and directed for her eviction from the land. ( 3 ) THE petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was not in unauthorised possession of the land as on 1-9-1977. Accordingly, agreeing with the reasonings of the Deputy Commissioner, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. ( 3 ) THE petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was not in unauthorised possession of the land as on 1-9-1977. Accordingly, agreeing with the reasonings of the Deputy Commissioner, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. ( 4 ) THE only objection taken on behalf of the petitioner to the impugned orders is to the effect that under Rule 25 of the Rules, any grant of land can be cancelled only by the authority which has granted. But in the present case, as submitted, since the grant was admittedly made by the Tahsildar, the Deputy Commissioner could not have resorted to a proceeding culminating in cancellation of the grant. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents have relied on the inherent powers conferred on the revenue courts which includes the Deputy Commissioner as contemplated under S. 25 of the Act to support the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner in passing the impugned order. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Abdul Basheer Sab v. State of Mysore reported in 1974 (2) Kant LJ 371 : (AIR 1975 Kant 86 ). ( 6 ) SECTION 2 (24) of the Act defines the term "revenue Officer" to mean every officer of any rank whatsoever appointed under or employed for the purpose of the Act. Section 8 provides for appointment of Deputy Commissioners and authorise them to exercise powers vested in them under the Act. Section 24 provides that a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar while determining any question under the Act or other existing law between the State Government or any person or between the parties to any proceeding shall be a Revenue Court. ( 7 ) ON the bedrock of the facts and the statutory provisions noticed above, it nowneeds to be determined as to whether on the face of R. 25 of the Rules, the Deputy Commissioner could have passed the impugned order by invoking the inherent powers as a Revenue Court as provided under S. 25 of the Act. ( 8 ) SECTION 25 of the Act and Rule 25 of the Rules read as under:"25. ( 8 ) SECTION 25 of the Act and Rule 25 of the Rules read as under:"25. Savings of inherent powers of a Revenue Court: Nothing in this Act, shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Revenue Court. "25. CANCELLATION of Grant: Any grant of land made under these Rules shall be liable to be cancelled and the land resumed by the authority which granted it, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations or is contrary to these rules; provided that no such cancellation shall be made without giving the grantee an opportunity of being heard. "under Rule 25 of the Rules referred to above the grant once made can be cancelled only by the authority which had granted it for the reason that the same has been obtained by making false and fradulent representation or the said grant is contrary to the Rules. In the present case, as found on facts, the grant in question was made by the Tahsildar by acting contrary to the Rules. But as apparent from the facts he had not made the present grant either in ignorance of the Rules or because of any misconception on his part in that regard. The facts give a clear indication of his conscious involvement in granting the land to the Petitioner in violation of the Rules. Therefore, his act was tainted with the bad faith and mala fides. In such situation, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the Tahsildar could not have been expected to resort to the cancellation of the proceedings to undo his illegal act. If the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is to be accepted, then it would only mean that in the matter of grants, even if the concerned authority grants any land illegality the same cannot be undone by any superior authority under the Act; and, so the act even if illegal will be final. If the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is to be accepted, then it would only mean that in the matter of grants, even if the concerned authority grants any land illegality the same cannot be undone by any superior authority under the Act; and, so the act even if illegal will be final. ( 9 ) IN my opinion, the Legislature in order to obviate the situation like the one involved in the present case has advisedly incorporated Section 25 in the Act so that the abuses caused by the revenue courts can be appropriately be prevented by holding date enquiries. The very purpose of conferring inherent powers on statutory authorities and the courts is always to prevent the abuse of process envisaged under the Act or the Law. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner having learnt about the illegalities committed in the present grant had undertaken an enquiry by giving notice to the respective parties, and, after hearing and having come to the conclusion regarding the illegality, has passed the impugned order. In my opinion, the present case is one of the illustrative cases in which the Deputy Commissioner acting as a revenue court has rightly exercised the inherent powers conferred on him under Section 25. ( 10 ) I may indicate here that no doubt under Rule 25 of the Rules power of cancellation has been vested with the authority which had granted the same, but this Rule cannot be construed as divesting the revenue courts of their inherent powers conferred under Section 25 of the Act. It is well settled that a subordinate legislation has to always yield to the provisions of the parent Act. Despite the declaration under sub-section (4) of Section 179 of the Act to the effect that "every rule made under this Act shall have the effect as if enacted in this Act", the Rules do not lose their character of being subordinate to the Act. In the case of Chief Inspector of Mines etc. v. Karam Chand Thapar, AIR 1961 SC 838 : (1961 (2) Cri LJ 1) it has been held that "the rules and regulations do not lose their character as rules and regulations, even though they are to be of the same effect as if contained in the Act. In the case of Chief Inspector of Mines etc. v. Karam Chand Thapar, AIR 1961 SC 838 : (1961 (2) Cri LJ 1) it has been held that "the rules and regulations do not lose their character as rules and regulations, even though they are to be of the same effect as if contained in the Act. They continue to be rules subordiante to the Act, and though for certain purposes including the purpose of construction, they are to be treated as if contained in the Act. Their true nature as subordinate rule is not lost. " ( 11 ) FOR the discussion as above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .