ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. Petitioner succeeded in obtaining a grant of 1 acre and 2 guntas of agriculture land in Sy. No. 623/3A-2 of Kukkandoor Village, Karkala Taluk by order dated 22-2-1974 under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. It appears that the Assistant Commissioner, after a lapse of 24 years, on a complaint of one Lawrence Lobo, initiated proceedings for cancellation of grant and by order dated 18-8-1998, cancelled the grant, following which, petitioner is said to have invoked the appellate jurisdiction before the Deputy Commissioner whence, the appeal was allowed and remitted for a fresh consideration. On remand the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner is said to have set aside the grant by order dated 23-6-2004. That order when called in question before the Deputy Commissioner, the appeal was dismissed, by order dated 27-8-2007, affirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. There afterwards, petitioner is said to have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Regional Commissioner under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the 'Act'), who too affirmed the orders of the authorities below and dismissed the revision petition by order dated 9-2-2009. Hence this petition. Having heard learned Counsel for petitioner and the Government Advocate for respondents, examined the orders of the authorities, what is palpable is one Lawrence Lobo, is said have lodged a complaint that petitioner had suppressed the fact of grant of land to her husband by stating that she was a landless poor person, hence, a fraud played on the land Grant Committee. The Assistant Commissioner though recorded a finding in view of the fraud played by the petitioner, initiation of proceeding 24 years after the grant order was just and proper, nevertheless, did not notice the eligibility criteria for grant of land for agricultural purpose under Rule 4(2) of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 as well as being an insufficient landholder under Section 2(15) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which did not prohibit petitioner from making an application for a grant of land measuring 1 acre 2 cents in Sy. No. 623/3A2 without disclosing an earlier grant of 1 acre 10 cents in Sy. No. 623/1C of Kukkandur in favour of Norber D'souza. No. 623/3A2 without disclosing an earlier grant of 1 acre 10 cents in Sy. No. 623/1C of Kukkandur in favour of Norber D'souza. Yet again, the finding that petitioner is not a poor landless person not being a disability for grant of land under Rule 4, since an insufficient landholder is entitled to a grant, fell in serious error occasioning grave miscarriage of justice in the matter of cancelling the grant. Apparently what is palpable from the order of the Assistant Commissioner is that there was no material worthwhile to establish either fraud or that petitioner was a sufficient landholder. The Deputy Commissioner and the Regional Commissioner too, in an appeal and revision, fell in error in not noticing relevant facts before confirming/ affirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 2. Suffice it to hold that the order of the Assistant Commissioner bristles with infirmities calling for interference. Sequentially the orders of Deputy Commissioner and that of the Regional Commissioner are unsustainable. In the result, petition is allowed. Order dated 9-2-2009 of the Regional Commissioner; order dated 27-8-2007 of the Deputy Commissioner and the order dated 23-6-2004 of the Assistant Commissioner are set aside and the proceeding remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration afresh after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations supra.