SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petition filed seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of second Respondent - Deputy Commissioner passed at Annexure 'h'. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claiming to be in unauthorised cultivation of the land bearing survey number 63 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of honaganahalli village, Mandya Taiuk, made an application for regularisation before the Committee, which is the 6th Respondent. The Committee did not recommend the grant in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Tahsildar rejected the request for regularisation, on the ground that, the land in question is already granted in favour of the 7th Respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the appeal as per the orders at Annexure 'e' finding that the land claimed by the petitioner is totally different from the one granted in favour of the 7th Respondent. It came to the turn to the 7th Respondent to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy commissioner, who under order at Annexure 'h' remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, for reconsideration and disposal in accordance with law, finding that there are rival claim between the petitioner and the 7th Respondent in respect of the same land and 7th Respondent is not made a party in the proceedings before the assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the order at Annexure 'h', this Writ Petition is filed for quashing of the same. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel Sri Siddagangaiah, appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that, by virtue of the provisions of rule 108 (D) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the appeal lies only to the Assistant Commissioner and there is no provisions for a second appeal being filed before the Deputy Commissioner and that the provisions of Section 50 of the Land Revenue Act are not applicable to the proceedings in Chapter XIII (A) of the Karnataka land Revenue Rules, 1996. ( 4 ) I do not find any merit in the contention that the provisions of Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are inapplicable to the proceedings under Rule 108 (D) of Karnataka Land Revenue rules. There is no express limitation provided and by inference also no such limitation can be read into the said provision. ( 4 ) I do not find any merit in the contention that the provisions of Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are inapplicable to the proceedings under Rule 108 (D) of Karnataka Land Revenue rules. There is no express limitation provided and by inference also no such limitation can be read into the said provision. Under Rule 108 on the recommendation made by regular committees, the tahsildar is competent authority to make the formal grant and against the order of Tahsildar an appeal is provided to Assistant commissioner. In respect of additional committees constituted, the assistant Commissioner is made the Chairman of the Committee. Therefore, any of the order of the additional committee have to be appealed to the Deputy Commissioner. Obviously for the reason that the Assistant Commissioner cannot be the appellate Authority in respect of the order to which he is a party. ( 5 ) THE provisions of Chapter XIIIA in Karnataka Land Revenue Rules do not give any finality to the orders made by the appellate authority. The substantive right to seek regularisation is governed by the provisions of Section 94a of the Karnataka Land Revenue act. The Rules under Chapter XIIIA are only auxiliary and complementary to the provisions of the Act. Under Section 50 of the karnataka Land Revenue Act any order passed by an Assistant commissioner is made appealable by way of second appeal to the deputy Commissioner. Section 50 does not excludes filing of a second appeal in respect of the orders made in first appeal by the assistant Commissioner relating to proceedings under Chapter XIIIA of the rules being subservient to the provisions of the Act have to be read together harmoniously. In that view, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. ( 6 ) ON merits, the Deputy Commissioner has correctly appreciated the position. Obviously, there appears to be rival claims in respect of the same land. Although the Assistant Commissioner has held that the land granted to the 7th respondent is distinct from the land claimed by the petitioner. If true, the 7th respondent could not have made out any grievance in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Even otherwise, for effective and fair adjudication, it is just and proper that the 7th respondent ought to have made as party before the assistant Commissioner for considering the rival claims together for adjudication. If true, the 7th respondent could not have made out any grievance in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. Even otherwise, for effective and fair adjudication, it is just and proper that the 7th respondent ought to have made as party before the assistant Commissioner for considering the rival claims together for adjudication. In that view, the Deputy Commissioner is quite right in setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and remitting the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner at the end of the dictation submitted that the petitioner's possession to be protected and proper orders to be passed. Since the matter is remitted to the assistant Commissioner, it is open for the petitioner to approach the assistant Commissioner to seek necessary and proper interim orders. However, until the disposal of the interim application by the Assistant commissioner, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. ( 8 ) IN view of the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .