ORDER The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 9-3-2009 (Annexure-L) passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 45 of 2006. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner claims to be in unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the land measuring 4 acres at Sy. No. 30 of the Tharanigere Village. He has made the application for the regularisation of his unauthorised occupation. Complaining of the inaction by the Committee for regularisation of unauthorized occupation, the petitioner and two others filed W.P. Nos. 4233 to 4235 of 2004. This Court, by its order, dated 5-2-2004 disposed of the petition to consider the petitioner's said application, if he has indeed made one such application. Till now, no orders are passed on the petitioner's application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation; nor have the authorities issued any endorsement to the effect that the petitioner has not made any application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation. When thus stood the state of affairs, the third respondent made an application to the Tahsildar seeking the change of katha in his favour in respect ofthe portion of land - 3 acres 20 guntas at Sy. No. 30. The third respondent's claim is based on the grant records. The Tahsildar did not issue the sought katha, as there is no tallying of the records. The Tahsildar's endorsement also says that the Tahsildar had suspected the very genuineness of the Saguvali Chit. The third respondent filed RP. No. 22 of 2004 before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the Tahsildar's refusal to issue the katha to him. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition setting aside the Tahsildar's endorsement, dated 9-2-2004 and further directed the Tahsildar to verify the original grant records, etc. and process the third respondent's request. Once again, the Tahsildar vide endorsements, dated 28-8-2004 and 28-6-2006 deferred the third respondent's consideration for the issuance of the katha on the ground of the pendency of the petitioner's application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the same land. The third respondent again approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing RP. No. 45 of 2006. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the endorsement, dated 28-6-2006 and directed the Tahsildar to verify the revenue records and take a decision on the third respondent's application, in accordance with law. It is this order, which is challenged in this writ petition. 3. The third respondent again approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing RP. No. 45 of 2006. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the endorsement, dated 28-6-2006 and directed the Tahsildar to verify the revenue records and take a decision on the third respondent's application, in accordance with law. It is this order, which is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Sri K.S. Narayana Swamy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent is not justified in filing the revision petition without availing of the interlayer remedy of filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. His second grievance is that the impugned order is passed without notice to the petitioner, although the endorsement, which was the subject-matter of the revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner contained the name of the petitioner. 4. Sri R Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Jeevan K, appearing for the respondent 3 submits that as the Deputy Commissioner has only passed the order of remand, no interference is called for. 5. The non-observance of principles of natural justice and the contravention of the statutory provisions cannot be wished away just because the impugned order is only a remand order. The party who is prima facie the person interested in the land is to be made a party to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. This is all the more so when the endorsement challenged before the Deputy Commissioner contained the name of the petitioner. If the petitioner were only to be made a party, he may have successfully contended that the revision petition is not maintainable and/or that the Tahsildar's endorsement is correct and power. It is worthwhile to refer to the proviso to Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964: "Provided that no order shall be passed except after hearing the party who would be adversely affected by such order". 6. On the short ground of the breach of the aforesaid provision and violation of principles of natural justice, I quash the impugned order. It is made clear that all the contentions are kept open. Liberty is reserved to the third respondent to file the appeal or revision petition but by making the petitioner a party to the said proceedings. 6. On the short ground of the breach of the aforesaid provision and violation of principles of natural justice, I quash the impugned order. It is made clear that all the contentions are kept open. Liberty is reserved to the third respondent to file the appeal or revision petition but by making the petitioner a party to the said proceedings. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on whether the appeal or revision petition lies as against the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar. 7. This petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.