V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE name of the petitioner was ordered to be entered in the R. T. C. by the Tahsildar under Annexure-L, dated 25-5-2004 in respect of Sy. No. 42 of Shamanatagi Village. By the impugned order at Annexure-M, the said order at Annexure-L is withdrawn. Petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned order on two grounds - (1) It is violative of principles of natural justice and (2) The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to revoke his own order. Reliance is placed upon the decision K. R. Lakshman v State of Karnataka and Others , to contend that Tahsildar has no inherent power under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. ( 2 ) EARLIER to Annexure-L, dated 25-5-2004, the Tahsildar passed order at Annexure-F, dated 22-3-2003 to enter the name of the petitioner. The same was modified by him under Annexure-G, dated 31-3-2003 to enter 12 to 32 acres in the name of the petitioner. But, the assistant Commissioner has set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 22-3-2003 under Annexure-H, dated 6-4-2004. Under Annexure-J, dated 17-9-2002 the Joint Director of Land Records has cancelled the Hissa form No. 10 approved by the A. D. L. R. Hence, the Tahsildar should not have passed the order at Annexure-L to enter the name of the petitioner in the R. T. C. After realising the mistake committed, the Tahsildar by the impugned order at Annexure-M has withdrawn the order at annexure-L on the ground that necessary orders could be passed after issuing notice to the persons interested in the land. No harm or prejudice is caused to the petitioner. ( 3 ) AT the time of passing order the petitioner also got an opportunity to put forth his case. Hence, the impugned order cannot be quashed on the ground of violative of principles of natural justice. The impugned order is perfectly justified and no interference is warranted. ( 4 ) THE decision relied upon by the petitioner does not render any assistance in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Grindlays Bank limited v Central Government Industrial Tribunal, wherein it is held that power of review is either expressly or impliedly conferred on the authority. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he should have challenged the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Joint Director of Land records. That is not done. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he should have challenged the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Joint Director of Land records. That is not done. As long as those orders are in force, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. ( 5 ) WRIT petition stands dismissed. --- *** --- .