ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. - I.A. No. 1 of 2015 is filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the 4th respondent from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession of the land in question. 2. Having regard to the nature of the grievance made in the main petition and the facts involved in this case, learned Counsel for all the parties have addressed their arguments both on the main matter as also on the application filed. 3. Petitioner is the purchaser of land bearing Sy. No. 30/4 (New No. 63) situated at Tuggalahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District, measuring 5 acres 33 guntas. 4. Fourth respondent herein has applied before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land contending inter alia that the land was a granted land and as per the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short `the Act'), alienation made being void the land was liable to be resumed to the Government and restored to the legal representatives of original grantee. The Assistant Commissioner has passed an order on 18-6-2014 allowing the said application and directing resumption and restoration of the land. 5. Writ petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the Act on 18-7-2014. An application has been filed seeking grant of interim stay. The Deputy Commissioner has not considered the said application. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed by the purchaser seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land. Interim order has been sought in similar terms seeking a restraint order against the 4th respondent from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession of the land in question. 6. On 20-2-2015, this Court has granted an interim order of stay of operation and implementation of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner till the disposal of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. It now transpires that soon after the order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 18-6-2014, he has issued a notice on 23-6-2014 to the writ petitioner calling upon him to deliver possession of the property. It now transpires that soon after the order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 18-6-2014, he has issued a notice on 23-6-2014 to the writ petitioner calling upon him to deliver possession of the property. Based on the notice issued, the Revenue Inspector appears to have visited the land and drawn up mahazar evidencing handing over of possession in favour of 4th respondent on 3-7-2014. 7. It has to be observed here that there is a statutory appeal provided under Section 5-A of the Act against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The aggrieved person has got sixty days time to file an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner is also clothed with a right to grant interim order pending disposal of the appeal. In the face of such provisions incorporated in the Act, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have waited till the expiry of period of limitation. But, in the instant case, admittedly, within a period of five days from the date of passing of the order by him, he has not only issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to hand over possession but has instructed the Revenue Authorities to take action for restoration of the land. 8. The Revenue Inspector has drawn the mahazar accordingly on 3-7-2014. The fact remains that the writ petitioner had filed the statutory appeal on 18-7-2014 within 30 days from the date of the order perhaps soon after receiving the certified copy of the order. In such circumstances, it is quite clear that the Assistant Commissioner has acted in great haste to circumvent and defeat the statutory right of appeal vested with the writ petitioner. Apparently, petitioner was not present when the mahazar was drawn. This Court has already granted interim stay of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. In such circumstances, possession handed over to the 4th respondent deserves to be restored back to the petitioner so as to wait the final decision of the Deputy Commissioner. This order is required lobe passed because the Revenue Authorities have acted in total disregard of he provisions contained under Section 5-A of the Act and the remedy of statutory appeal conferred on the petitioner. 9. The Deputy Commissioner ought to have passed an order on the application filed for grant of interim stay. He has not done so. This order is required lobe passed because the Revenue Authorities have acted in total disregard of he provisions contained under Section 5-A of the Act and the remedy of statutory appeal conferred on the petitioner. 9. The Deputy Commissioner ought to have passed an order on the application filed for grant of interim stay. He has not done so. That is the reason why this Court has granted interim stay till the disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has to now consider the merits of the matter and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner has been dispossessed, the possession shall be restored. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.