N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents, the matter is taken up for hearing. ( 2 ) THE petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 27-10-1998 and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22-5-2001, has presented this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that she had acquired the Moolagem right in respect of Sy. No. 16/5 measuring 0. 03 acre of Karnad Village, mangalore Taluk, by a registered sale deed dated 8-12-1965. In pursuance of the said sale deed, mutation entries were sanctioned by the competent Authorities and thereafter, the name of the petitioner was entered in the RTC extract. Subsequently, the petitioner had sought for permission for conversion of the Schedule property for residential purposes. The said permission was granted by the Competent Authority for converting the schedule property and sub-divided as 0. 02 acre and 0. 01 acre as per Annexure-G. Pursuant to the permission granted by the competent Authority, the petitioner had constructed a residential house and she has been residing in the schedule property with her family members. Further, the case of the petitioner is that thereafter, she was paying the tax in respect of the schedule property and in support of the said submission she has produced Annexure-H. When things stood thus, the 4th respondent alleged to have given a representation to the 3rd respondent for rectification/clarification in respect of the mutation sanctioned in favour of the petitioner as early as on 23-7-1983. In pursuance of the said representation given by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has clarified by its order dated 16-8-1996 in No. CR 39:96-97 clarifying as to what is the extent held by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 16-8-1996, the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in No. RRT:sr:108/96-97. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27-10-1998 has allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent and the matter was remitted back for fresh disposal. Assailing the said order by the Assistant Commissioner dated 27-10-1998, the petitioner herein filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner under section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27-10-1998 has allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent and the matter was remitted back for fresh disposal. Assailing the said order by the Assistant Commissioner dated 27-10-1998, the petitioner herein filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner under section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the sides has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to the 3rd respondent to hear the matter and pass appropriate orders. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22-5-2001 and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 27-10-1998, the petition has presented this writ petition. ( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the representation/application filed by the 4th respondent is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. But however, considering the request of the 4th respondent, clarification has been issued. Against the said order passed on 16-8-1996, the 4th respondent has filed an appeal on 28-2-1997 without filing an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as prescribed under the relevant rules. The 4th respondent is supposed to have filed the appeal within 60 days from the date of the order passed by the 3rd respondent. This aspect of the matter is not at all taken into consideration by the Assistant commissioner nor has given any finding to this effect except stating that 'the appeal filed by the 4th respondent is allowed, the impugned order of the Deputy Tahsildar is quashed and the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal'. Hence, he rightly pointed out that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is neither a speaking order nor has he assigned any cogent reason for setting aside the clarification given by the 3rd respondent. ( 5 ) ASSAILING the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the revision before the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 31-7-1998 in W. P. No. 38309 of 1998, permitting him to file the revision before the Deputy commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner also committed an error in not considering the submissions made by the parties and without assigning any reasons, has simply dismissed the revision confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner also committed an error in not considering the submissions made by the parties and without assigning any reasons, has simply dismissed the revision confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, he contended that both the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Hence, it is not sustainable. ( 6 ) FURTHER, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Dharmoji, devendra Kadabi v The Assistant Commissioner, Belgaurn, where in this Court held that:"one another thing which needs consideration in this writ petition is the legality of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. That was an appeal filed under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land revenue Act after a lapse of 12 years from the date of mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner on 20-8-1991. An appeal if required to be filed against the order of the Tahsildar within 60 days. There is no whisper in the order regarding the condonation of delay. It is settled law that unless the Courts condone the delay in filing the proceeding before it, the Court does not get jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding. That itself is an illegality committed by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the impugned order does not stand to scrutiny. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is quashed". Hence, he prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed. ( 7 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents inter alia contended that the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 16-8-1996 is contrary to the relevant material on record. Instead of considering his request in accordance with law, he has passed the wrong order. Against that order, he filed an appeal before the Assistant commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner heard the matter and by setting aside the order, remitted the matter to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration. Further, he contended that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly exercised his revisional jurisdiction and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the only reason assigned by the Assistant Commissioner for remanding the matter is for fresh disposal. However, he was unable to persuade regarding the delay in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. Further, he contended that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly exercised his revisional jurisdiction and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the only reason assigned by the Assistant Commissioner for remanding the matter is for fresh disposal. However, he was unable to persuade regarding the delay in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. There is an inordinate delay for more than four months in filing the appeal as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE short question for consideration is whether the respondents 1 and 2 have passed the impugned orders in accordance with law. 8-A. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. He has specifically pointed out before the Assistant Commissioner that there was an inordinate delay of more than four months in filing the appeal. The said objection raised by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration. It is also pointed out that the said application cannot be entertained without filing an application for condonation of delay since it is in violation of the rule 16 (f) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. This aspect of the matter is not at all taken into consideration by the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner only states that 'the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar is set aside and the matter stands remitted back for fresh disposal'. In my considered view, without considering the specific case made by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, without assigning any reason and without application of mind he has proceeded to pass the impugned order. ( 9 ) THE revisional authority has also not taken into consideration the case made out by the petitioner before the revisional authority as specifically contended that the appeal filed to the 4th respondent is not maintainable under Section 136 (2) on the ground that the said appeal filed without an application for condonation of delay as held by this court. This aspect of the matter is not at all taken into consideration by the revisional authority. This aspect of the matter is not at all taken into consideration by the revisional authority. The revisional authority held that the 3rd respondent has committed an error without giving an opportunity to the parties and without going into the material facts on the record has passed the order dated 16-8-1996 and the Assistant Commissioner has rightly set aside the order passed and remitted back to the 3rd respondent and confirming the said order without assigning any cogent reasons or followed the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue act and Rules. ( 10 ) FURTHER, it is to be noticed that as a matter of fact as revealed from the material facts on record and as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly the respondent 4 has not challenged the mutation sanctioned in favour of petitioner, by the Competent authority as early as on 23-7-1983 and after a lapse of more than one decade the 4th respondent made an application before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has taken into consideration the said representation as one without jurisdiction and without knowing the mutation sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent ought not to have taken into consideration the application filed by the petitioner for rectification/clarification. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 have proceeded on a wrong footing without following the procedure of law. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, taking into consideration the totality of the subjectmatter and having regard to the factual and legal position of law, I do not find any justification to sustain the impugned orders passed by the assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner succeeds. The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 27-10-1998 and the Deputy Commissioner dated 22-5-2001 are hereby set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the 4th respondent to redress his grievance before the appropriate forum, if he so desires. ( 12 ) PARTIES to bear their own costs. ( 13 ) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. --- *** --- .