ORDER B.S. Patil, J. 1. Order dated 13-8-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District in the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent herein under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act') is called in question in this writ petition. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has reversed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-division, Bangalore, and has held that the alienation of 3 acres of land comprised in Survey No. 50 situated at B.K. Palya Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was in violation of the provisions of the Act and was therefore null and void. The Deputy Commissioner ordered for resumption of the land to the Government and restoration of the same in favour of the original grantee/his legal heirs. 2. Petitioner before this Court is the purchaser of the land as per registered sale deed dated 30-5-1977 and 17-2-1979. It is unnecessary to go into the other details of the facts involved in this case, inasmuch as this matter deserves to be disposed of only on the short point that the very dispute regarding the resumption and restoration of the land was, on contest, disposed of by the previous orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner which have attained finality and despite the said order, fresh proceedings are sought to be now initiated by another legal representative of the grantee which is apparently impermissible. To this extent, the facts necessary are required to be stated. 3. Original grantee is one Thalawara Muniyappa alias Munishamappa. He died leaving behind his two children by name Muniyappa and Krishnappa. Krishnappa filed an application seeking resumption and restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Act. By order dated 19-2-1985, the Assistant Commissioner after holding an enquiry dismissed the application. This order was not "challenged in appeal. However, another application was moved before the Assistant Commissioner by the very same Krishnappa and the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 15-5-1998 after holding an enquiry dismissed the application as per Annexure-N. This order was challenged by Krishnappa, the legal heir of the grantee by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. The Deputy Commissioner, dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 1-7-2002 produced at Annexure-P. This order has attained finality. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 1-7-2002 produced at Annexure-P. This order has attained finality. 4. Again fresh proceedings were sought to be initiated. This time by one Muniraju-4th respondent herein who is another legal representative of the original grantee (son of Doddamuniyappa who is none other than the grandson of Munisami). The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application holding that the 4th respondent cannot maintain such an application as the dispute had attained finality. An appeal was preferred against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner by the 4th respondent before the Deputy Commissioner. By the impugned order, Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and has ordered resumption and restoration of the land. 5. The Deputy Commissioner has gone into the merits of the matter again and has come to the conclusion that in the earlier proceedings the matter was not properly considered. He has recorded such a finding though original records pertaining to the grant were not available, because, according to him, there were materials in the form of revenue records to hold that such a grant was there and in violation of the terms of the grant, the sale had been made. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court, a decision of this Court in the case of V. Hanumanthaiah v. State of Karnataka and Others 2006 (1) Kar. L.J. 466 : ILR 2006 Kar. 174, to contend that it is not open for the Deputy Commissioner to entertain an appeal against the very order passed under the very jurisdiction by his predecessor earlier. He is right and justified in contending that if the authorities are allowed to reconsider the order earlier passed which have attained finality, then the litigants will be pushed into uncertainty forever and will never be in a position to know what actually would happen to their cases, because at any time the orders passed earlier can be re-opened by initiating fresh proceedings at the instance of the same person or persons claiming through or under them. 7. Learned Government Pleader does not and cannot contest this position of law in view of the order passed by this Court in V. Hanumanthaiah's case. 7. Learned Government Pleader does not and cannot contest this position of law in view of the order passed by this Court in V. Hanumanthaiah's case. The facts and circumstances of the case narrated above clearly show that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order disregarding the earlier order passed by the Deputy Commissioner which had attained finality. He had no jurisdiction in law to entertain the controversy afresh. Law favours the finality to the proceedings and once a remedy of appeal is availed and the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal on merits, it will not be open to the very authority to entertain another proceeding and enter into the merits of the matter. Hence, the impugned order being patently illegal, deserves to be set aside. It is also necessary to notice that 7 years after the previous proceedings having attained finality, the present proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner were initiated which lacks bona fides. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.