ORDER : B. Sreenivas Gowda, J. 1. These writ petitions are by legal representatives of respondent 6 before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the order Annexure-N, dated 14-9-2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bangalore in Case No. SC/ST(A) 197/2008-09 in allowing the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 13 herein and setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and consequently ordering for restoration of the petition land in favour of respondents 3 to 13. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for contesting respondents 3 to 13 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Notice to respondents 14 to 18 is dispensed with at the request and risk of the petitioner. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. 3. Sri Subramanya H.V., the learned Counsel appearing for legal representatives of respondent 6/petitioners herein submits that the Deputy Commissioner who went on adjourning the appeal from time to time and having adjourned the appeal from 10-6-2015 to 15-7-2015 on the ground that Presiding Officer is otherwise engaged, could not have preponed it from 15-7-2015 to 22-6-2015 and allowed the appeal on 14-9-2015 setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner whereby he rejected the application filed by the appellants and ordered for restoration of the petition land in favour of the appellants-respondents 3 to 13 herein without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein. 4. He submits a copy of the advance application neither served on petitioners/respondent 6 nor on the Counsel appearing for him before the Deputy Commissioner as he was not aware of the advancement of appeal from 15-7-2015 to 22-6-2015. Consequently, he could not appear before the Deputy Commissioner on the said date of hearing. But unfortunately, the Deputy Commissioner heard the argument of the appellants/respondents 3 to 13 herein and allowed the appeal on 14-9-2015. Therefore, he prays for allowing these writ petitions by setting aside the order dated 14-9-2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 5. Therefore, he prays for allowing these writ petitions by setting aside the order dated 14-9-2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 5. He further submits pursuant to the impugned order dated 14-9-2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the Tahsildar has changed the revenue entries and effected mutation in the names of appellants/respondents 3 to 13 herein in respect of the petition land and therefore, entries in the revenue records may be ordered to be restored in the name of legal representatives of respondent 6/petitioners herein. 6. Per contra, Sri K.S. Narayana Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for contesting respondent 3 who is appellant 1 before the Deputy Commissioner submits that it is not in dispute that case was adjourned from 10-6-2015 to 15-7-2015 on the ground that the Presiding Officer was otherwise engaged. He submits that appellants who are respondents 3 to 13 in these writ petitions got the appeal preponed from 15-7-2015 to 22-6-2015 by serving a copy of advance application on the learned Counsel for the respondent 6-petitioners herein. He also points out that a colleague of the learned Counsel for the respondents 6/petitioners has received the copy of the advance application. In fact he has produced the acknowledgement showing petitioners' Counsel has received the copy of advance application along with the statement of objections filed by respondents 3 to 13 in these writ petitions. He further submits petitioners' Counsel addressed argument on 22-6-2015. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the arguments of the parties, pronounced the order on 14-9-2005 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and declared the sale transaction relating to the petition land as null and void and ordered for restoration of the petition land in favour of the appellants. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order Annexure-N warranting interference of this Court and he prays for dismissal of the appeal. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order Annexure-N warranting interference of this Court and he prays for dismissal of the appeal. However, he submits that in the event of this Court remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration of the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner may be directed to dispose of the appeal within a particular time-limit and legal representatives of respondent 6/petitioners herein may be directed to extend co-operation with the Deputy Commissioner, so that he could dispose of the appeal within the time to be specified by this Court. He submits that appellants/respondents 3 to 13 herein would not seek adjournment and they would extend co-operation with the Deputy Commissioner for early disposal of the appeal. 7. Regarding request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners for restoration of revenue entries in the name of the petitioner, he submits that entries have already been effected in the names of appellants/respondents 3 to 13 in the revenue records in respect of the petition land pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner and it may be observed that entries already made in the name of appellants will be subject to the out come of the appeal on its reconsideration. 8. Sri E.R. Diwakar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 on instructions of Sri N.S. Prashanth, Tahsildar, Enforcement Cell, who is deputed by the Deputy Commissioner submits that in the event of Court remanding the matter, the Deputy Commissioner is prepared to dispose of the appeal within the time going to be specified by this Court. 9. These petitions are by the purchaser of the petition land. Respondents 3 to 13 herein who are the legal representatives of original grantee of the petition land filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore requesting him to declare the alienation of petition land made in favour of respondent 6 before the Deputy Commissioner as null and void and to order for restoration of the land in their favour. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 11-7-2008 rejected the application. The respondents 3 to 13 aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner challenged the same by preferring an appeal in No. SC/ST Appeal 197/2008-09 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District. Appeal was pending before the Deputy Commissioner from 29-8-2008. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 11-7-2008 rejected the application. The respondents 3 to 13 aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner challenged the same by preferring an appeal in No. SC/ST Appeal 197/2008-09 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District. Appeal was pending before the Deputy Commissioner from 29-8-2008. On several occasions, it was adjourned for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner/Presiding Officer was otherwise engaged and on several occasions, it was adjourned at the request of the parties. The order sheet discloses that on 10-6-2015, appeal was adjourned to 15-7-2015. Respondents 3 to 13 who are interested to have the petition land restored in their favour got the appeal preponed from 15-7-2015 to 22-6-2015 by serving a copy of the advance application on the learned Counsel appearing for respondent 6/petitioners herein and accordingly case was preponed from 15-8-2015 to 22-6-2015 and appeal came to be disposed of on 14-9-2015. 10. Sri K.S. Narayana Swamy, learned Counsel for respondent 3/appellant 1 before the Deputy Commissioner submits that pursuant to the advancement of the appeal from 15-8-2015 to 22-6-2015, a colleague of learned Counsel appearing for respondent 6/petitioners herein did present before the Deputy Commissioner on 22-6-2015 and in fact, he had addressed argument on behalf of the petitioners, which fact has been denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioners herein. Without going into the said controversy as to whether learned Counsel for respondent 6/petitioners herein had argued the appeal on 22-6-2015 before the Deputy Commissioner or not, in the interest of giving an opportunity to the parties, this Court is of the opinion that matter could be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction to dispose of the appeal by the end of January 2016. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petitions are allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 14-9-2015 passed in No. SC/ST Appeal 197/2008-09 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore-respondent 1 herein is set aside. (iii) The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner and the appeal filed in No. SC/ST Appeal 197/2008-09 is ordered to be restored to its original file. (iv) The Deputy Commissioner-respondent 1 herein is hereby directed to commence the hearing of the appeal from 6-1-2016. (v) As the contesting parties viz. (iii) The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner and the appeal filed in No. SC/ST Appeal 197/2008-09 is ordered to be restored to its original file. (iv) The Deputy Commissioner-respondent 1 herein is hereby directed to commence the hearing of the appeal from 6-1-2016. (v) As the contesting parties viz. namely appellants 3 to 13 and legal representative of respondent 6 before the Deputy Commissioner are present before this Court through their respective Counsel, they are hereby directed to be present either personally or through their Advocate before the Deputy Commissioner at 3.00 p.m. on 6-1-2016 without expecting any notice and they are directed to commence their arguments on the said date and conclude their argument before 20-1-2016 so as to enable the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the appeal by the end of January 2016. It is open to both the parties to file their written arguments if they desire to do so. (vi) The Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the appeal on merit and in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties as indicated hereinabove. (vii) Entries and mutation effected in the name of appellants/respondents 3 to 13 herein in the revenue records in respect of the petition land will be subject to outcome of the appeal.