Judgment :- Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. Father of the petitioners, namely Narasimhappa died during the minority of the petitioners. The first petitioner was agend about 14 years and second petitioner was aged about 7-8 years at the time of death of their father. The Tahsildar, Channagiri Taluk, passed the order in favour of petitioners represented by N. Rangappa, as per Annexure-A, dated 17.5.1978 regularizing the unauthorized occupation of the land bearing Sy.No.28 of Muddenahalli Village, measuring 3 acres. The order at Annexure-A reveals that the petitioners were represented by respondent No.3 herein viz., N. Rangappa, who is the maternal uncle of the petitioners, i.e., elder brother of the petitioners' mother, as their guardian. The death certificate of Narasimhappa, father of the petitioners is produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition. It is clear from the said death certificate that the death of Narasimhappa was on 20.7.1977, whereas the order of regularization was passed on 17.5.1978. Which means, the death of Narasimhappa, the father of the petitioners was earlier to the order of regularization. Pursuant to the order of the regularization, saguvali chit was issued in favour of the petitioners. In the said saguvali chit also, it is mentioned that the petitioners are represented by their guardian N. Rangappa (respondent No. 3 herein). Certain Sri M.B. Sharanappa and M.H. Shivappa, questioned the grants made in favour of the petitioners and other grantees by filing appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga in RA No. 7 of 78-79. In the said appeal also, these petitioners were represented by their guardian N. Rangappa-respondent No. 3 herein. The petitioners and similarly placed grantees were represented by an Advocate before the Assistant Commissioner. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on hearing the parties. Thereafter the names of the petitioners were mutated in the mutation register, as could be seen from Annexure-E. The said mutation register also discloses that the petitioners are represented by N. Rangappa. After attaining the age of majority, petitioners seem to have been made application to delete the name of guardian from the revenue records and accordingly, mutation Entry No. 7/86-87 was certified on 8.8.1986 by deleting the name of the guardian N. Rangappa. Thus, the names of the petitioners continued in the revenue records in their own capacity. The copy of the record of rights for the year 2006-07 is produced at Annexure-G. 2. Thus, the names of the petitioners continued in the revenue records in their own capacity. The copy of the record of rights for the year 2006-07 is produced at Annexure-G. 2. When the facts stood thus, the third respondent filed appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, (for short hereinafter referred to as the `Act') before the Assistant Commissioner, Davangere, questioning the order of the Tahsildar granting saguvali chit in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land in question. The case of the third respondent is that the regularization of unauthorized occupation should have been made in his favour. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 17.5.2004. The third respondent questioned the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner by filing further appeal under Section 50 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the third respondent herein and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and consequently directed to issue saguvali chit in favour of the third respondent. Questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner, this writ petition is filed. 3. In the meanwhile, he has also filed suit in O.S. No. 75 of 2004 before the Civil Court (Junior Division), Channagiri against the Tahsildar and the petitioners seeking declaration that the saguvali chit issued by the Tahsildar, Channagiri, during 1977-78 in the names of the petitioners was illegal and void and for further direction to the Tahsildar to issue saguvali chit in his name. The said suit came to be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that after the demise of their father Narasimhappa, their maternal uncle viz., N. Rangappa (Respondent No. 3 herein) was looking after the family affairs of the petitioners; that the father of the petitioners Narasimhappa was in unauthorized occupation of the property in question; that as he expired prior to filing of application for regularization, the guardian of the petitioners filed application praying for regularization on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, the saguvali chit was issued in favour of the petitioners represented by their minor guardian and consequent entries were also made in favour of the petitioners. If really, the third respondent had filed application in his personal capacity, the authorities would not have, granted saguvali chit in favour of the petitioners who were minors then. Therefore, the saguvali chit was issued in favour of the petitioners represented by their minor guardian and consequent entries were also made in favour of the petitioners. If really, the third respondent had filed application in his personal capacity, the authorities would not have, granted saguvali chit in favour of the petitioners who were minors then. Even, the third respondent did not object for grant of saguvali chit in favour of the petitioners by filing the appeal etc., within the reasonable period. It is further contended that respondent No. 3 has filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner after about 26 years from the date of saguvali chit and therefore his request should have been rejected. Thus, according to petitioners, the order of the Deputy Commissioner directing the concerned to issue saguvali chit in favour of the third respondent, by setting aside the saguvali chit issued in favour of the petitioners, is bad in the eye of law. Per contra, it is the case of respondent No. 3 that it is he, who filed the application for regularization of his unauthorized occupation of the land in question; that there is nothing on record to show that late Narasimhappa (father of the petitioners) was in unauthorized occupation of the property; that he has made representations in the year 1979 to the Revenue Department for grant of saguvali chit in his favour; that he was never the guardian of the petitioners, but the guardian of the petitioners was the uncle of the petitioners viz., T. Govindappa; that the petitioners could not have been granted saguvali chit as they were minors then, inasmuch as they would not have cultivated the property unauthorizedly; that during relevant period the first petitioner was studying in the school by staying in the hostel and. the second petitioner was just aged about 7-8 years old. Sri Ravi Verma Kumar learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 vehemently contended that fraud is played by the petitioners on the authorities as well as on the third respondent. As the fraud vitiates everything, the saguvali chit issued in favour of the petitioners is nullity in the eye of law. He relied upon the judgments in the case of Shrishtdhawan (Smt.) Vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 534 , in the case of Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. As the fraud vitiates everything, the saguvali chit issued in favour of the petitioners is nullity in the eye of law. He relied upon the judgments in the case of Shrishtdhawan (Smt.) Vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 534 , in the case of Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Others, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 311 and in the case of Krishan Yadav and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 165 , in support of his contention. 5. Deputy Commissioner has observed that there is no record to show that the father of the petitioners was in unauthorized possession of the property; that the petitioners were looked after by their uncle Govindappa and not by the third respondent herein. The Deputy Commissioner has held that Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as `1966 Rules'), is violated, inasmuch as the grantees were minors, then; that the petitioners were students and they did not file application praying for regularization of their alleged unauthorized occupation of the land; since nobody has filed application on behalf of the petitioners, the Tahsildar was not justified in issuing saguvali chit in favour of the petitioners. 6. The records maintained by the State Government do not reveal the application filed by Narasimhappa, the father of the petitioners. As the petitioners were minors studying in schools, could not have filed application for regularization of their unauthorized occupation. However, the records reveal the application filed by the third respondent praying for regularization at page No. 13 of the records, but on the top of the said application filed by the third respondent, the names of these petitioners are mentioned in the pencil. The saguvali chit, which is found at page No. 46 of the records, is issued in the name of the petitioners represented by their minor guardian N. Rangappa (respondent No. 3 herein). Consequent upon the saguvali chit, certain TT fine was levied on the petitioners represented by N. Rangappa. The order levying the fine passed by the Tahsildar is found at page No. 51 of the records. Thereafter the names of the petitioners were entered in the revenue records pursuant to the grant. In the mutation register also, it is mentioned that the petitioners are represented by their minor guardian Rangappa. The order levying the fine passed by the Tahsildar is found at page No. 51 of the records. Thereafter the names of the petitioners were entered in the revenue records pursuant to the grant. In the mutation register also, it is mentioned that the petitioners are represented by their minor guardian Rangappa. The mutuation was made as far back as in the year 1985-86. After attaining majority, the name of the guardian of the petitioners N. Rangappa is deleted and consequently, the names of the petitioners continued in their personal capacity, as is clear from the document at Annexure-F which is of the year 1986-87. From that day, the names of these petitioners are continued year after year. If really, the third respondent had filed application praying for regularization of alleged unauthorized occupation of the land in his personal capacity and for his benefit and not in the capacity of the guardian of the petitioners, the saguvali chit would not have been issued in the name of minor petitioners. Even otherwise, the third respondent could not have kept quiet since 1978 without filing appeal, questioning saguvali chit. According to the third respondent, he has made three representations in the year 1979 before the revenue authorities praying for grant of saguvali chit in his favour. However, no action is taken by the revenue authorities then Respondent No. 3 did not initiate any legal action thereafter. There is nothing on record to show that Respondent No. 3 was in possession of the land in question unauthorisedly prior to 1978, i.e., prior to the date of Saguvali chit in question. It is curious to note that certain Sri M.B. Sharanappa and Shivappa representing villagers filed R.A. No. 7/78-79 before the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga, questioning the saguvali chit issued in favour of the petitioners and others. In the said appeal, the petitioners were arrayed as respondents represented by guardian Rangappa. Which means, that the third respondent represented the petitioners even in the appeal filed by the third parties and contested the matter. All the respondents in the said appeal, including the petitioners were represented by the Advocate. If really, the third respondent was aggrieved by the grant made in favour of the petitioners, he would not have represented the petitioners in the appeal. On the other hand, he would have himself filed the appeal questioning the saguvali chit issued in favour of the petitioners. If really, the third respondent was aggrieved by the grant made in favour of the petitioners, he would not have represented the petitioners in the appeal. On the other hand, he would have himself filed the appeal questioning the saguvali chit issued in favour of the petitioners. Even when the names of the petitioners were mutated in the year 1985-86 and thereafter at the time of deleting the name of the third respondent as a guardian, the third respondent did not object. This itself goes to show that the third respondent was consenting party for the grant made in favour of the petitioners and that he has filed the application for regularization on behalf of the then minor petitioners who were his wards and not for his benefit. 7. The Deputy Commissioner has assumed that the petitioners were under the guardianship of their uncle Sri T. Govindappa and that respondent No. 3 viz., Rangappa was not the guardian. There is nothing on record to fortify the said contention. It is no doubt true that the grant certificate issued to the petitioners was received by Govindappa, the uncle of the petitioners. The same is clear from the noting made at the end of the grant certificate. If the noting is meticulously perused, it is clear that said Govindappa has received saguvali chit not only on behalf of the minors but also on behalf of the minor guardian of the petitioners. Thus it cannot be said that Govindappa has acted as guardian at any point of time. Be that as it may, the material on record amply discloses that the third respondent has acted as a guardian of the petitioners all through, as is clear from the saguvali chit, the order relating to payment of TT fine, mutation extracts, and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in appeal in RA No. 7/78-79, etc. Thus, the observations of the Deputy Commissioner in that regard cannot be sustained. 8. The Deputy Commissioner has also held that the grant made in favour of the petitioners is contrary to Section 4 of 1966 Rules. Thus, the observations of the Deputy Commissioner in that regard cannot be sustained. 8. The Deputy Commissioner has also held that the grant made in favour of the petitioners is contrary to Section 4 of 1966 Rules. The said reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner also is unsustainable, inasmuch as the grant is not made in favour of the petitioners under the provisions of 1966 Rules, but the saguvali chit is issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation of Lands) Rules, 1970 (for short hereinafter referred to as `1970 Rules'). These Rules are specifically meant for regularizing the unauthorized occupation of lands. It is not in dispute in this matter that the saguvali chit is issued in favour of the petitioners by regularizing the unauthorized occupation of the lands. As could he seen from Rule 2(d) of 1970 Rules, "the person in unauthorized occupation" means, the person in unauthorized occupation of the land and shall include the persons claiming under him. In this matter, the case of the petitioners is that their father Sri Narasimhappa was in unauthorized cultivation of the property and that therefore the regularization has been made in their favour after demise of their father. As these petitioners are claiming under their father they are deemed to be the persons in unauthorized occupation of the land. Merely because the petitioners were minors studying in the schools, they cannot be debarred from getting the land held by their father unauthorizedly. The restrictions and requirements for getting the lands regularized are found in Rule 6 of 1970 Rules. There is nothing on record to show that these petitioners are disqualified to get the land regularized in their favour under 1970 Rules. As aforementioned, the petitioners being minors during relevant period could not have made application for regularization. As 1966 Rules are inapplicable to the facts of this case, these petitioners cannot be debarred from getting the land regularized in their favour even if they were below the age of 18 years at the time of grant. Looking from any angle, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. 9. This Court does not find that the petitioners have played fraud on the State Government and respondent No. 3. Admittedly, petitioners 1 and 2 were aged about 14 years and 7 years respectively at the time of grant. Looking from any angle, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. 9. This Court does not find that the petitioners have played fraud on the State Government and respondent No. 3. Admittedly, petitioners 1 and 2 were aged about 14 years and 7 years respectively at the time of grant. The grant was made in favour of the petitioners represented by minor guardian. It cannot be said that the minors had played fraud on the State Government and on the 3rd respondent in the year 1978. The petitioners have neither provided false facts nor have they suppressed any material fact at the time of grant. As aforementioned, they were just school going children. Respondent No. 3 has not explained as to how and in what manner the petitioners or anybody on their behalf have played fraud on State or on respondent No. 3. As aforementioned, there is nothing on record to show that respondent No. 3 was in possession of the property at any time prior to 1978 unauthorisedly. Therefore, the contention made on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the petitioners have played fraud cannot be sustained. On the other hand, the third respondent cannot be allowed to question the grant made in favour of the petitioners after the lapse of about 28 years. The Court will invalidate the order only if the right remedy is sought for by the right person in the right proceedings at the right time. Even if the order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the Court may refuse to quash it, because of the delay in challenging the same. When the discretion has been conferred on the Court, the Court may in appropriate case decline to grant relief even if it holds that the order is void. The net result is that extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court may not be exercised in such circumstances. (See (1996) 6 SCC 445 , Mansaram Vs. S.P. Pathak and Others). In this matter, it cannot be said that the third respondent did not have notice of the saguvali chit. All through, the third respondent represented the petitioners as their guardian till they attained the majority. As a matter of fact, he supported the order made in favour of the petitioners when the same questioned by the third parties before the Assistant Commissioner in RA No. 7/78-79. All through, the third respondent represented the petitioners as their guardian till they attained the majority. As a matter of fact, he supported the order made in favour of the petitioners when the same questioned by the third parties before the Assistant Commissioner in RA No. 7/78-79. It is unfortunate that respondent No. 3 who represented and defended the minors as their guardian all through, has taken `U' turn by claiming the property in question for himself by filing the appeal before the authorities below after the lapse of 28 years against the petitioners i.e., against the interests of the then minors, that too by making allegations of fraud against them. Such a conduct of minor guardian shocks the conscience of the Court. Under the facts and circumstances of the case this Court concludes that neither the petitioners nor anybody on their behalf have played fraud on anybody much less on State. In view of the above, respondent No. 3 is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner is not justified in granting the prayer of respondent No. 3. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is made:- The order of the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-K, dated 9.2.2007, stands quashed. Petition is allowed accordingly.