K. H. N. KURANGA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent 3 and the high court government pleader for respondents 1 and 2. ( 2 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30-9-1986 (Annexure-D) passed by the assistant commissioner, Bangalore sub-division, Bangalore and the order dated 27-10-1995 (Annexure-E) passed by the special deputy commissioner (revenue), Bangalore district, Bangalore. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is the son of the original grantee of the land in question viz. , govindaiah. The original grantee-govindaiah filed an application under the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') before the assistant commissioner, Bangalore sub-division, bangalore for restoration of the land in question to him. The assistant commissioner had passed an order on 19-3-1983 against which respondent 3 herein filed an appeal before the special deputy commissioner, Bangalore and the special deputy commissioner set aside the order passed by the assistant commissioner and remanded the case to the assistant commissioner for disposal of the case afresh after conducting enquiry, as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, the assistant commissioner passed an order on 30-9-1986 dropping the proceedings as per Annexure-D. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order Annexure-D , the petitioner filed an appeal before the deputy commissioner and the deputy commissioner has dismissed the same as per Annexure-E. ( 5 ) THE date of the order of the assistant commissioner is 30-9-1986. On that date, the grantee or the son of the grantee had no right of appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the deputy commissioner was not maintainable. Therefore, the order Annexure-E passed by the deputy commissioner is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) THE order Annexure-C passed by the special deputycommissioner shows that he had remanded the case to the assistant commissioner for further proper enquiry by bringing the legal representatives of the original grantee on record. Para 5 of the order Annexure-C passed by the special deputy commissioner reads thus : "since a technical question has arisen as to the institution of the proceedings against a dead person the lacuna has to be cured before going into the merits of the case. Hence, I set aside the impugned order passed by the assistant commissioner in k. sc. Hence, I set aside the impugned order passed by the assistant commissioner in k. sc. st. (s) 8 of 1979-80, dated 19-3-1983 and remand the case for further proper enquiry by bringing the l. rs. On record and then disposal in accordance with law". ( 7 ) THE assistant commissioner has not conducted any enquiry after bringing the legal representatives of the original grantee on record, but dropped the proceedings as per Annexure-D. Hence, this order Annexure-D passed by the assistant commissioner is liable to be quashed. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, this petition is allowed. The order Annexure-D and the order Annexure-E passed by the assistant commissioner, Bangalore sub-division, Bangalore and the special deputy commissioner (revenue), Bangalore district, Bangalore, respectively are quashed and the case is remanded to the assistant commissioner, Bangalore sub-division, Bangalore for disposal of the case afresh. The assistant commissioner is directed to bring the legal representatives of the original grantee on record, conduct the enquiry after issuing notices to the parties afresh and thereafter dispose of the case in accordance with law. --- *** --- .