ORDER : The petitioners filed the present writ petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 06.05.2017 made in order bearing No.ANA CR 29/2016-17 passed by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of land bearing Sy.No.117/1A, Sy.No.117/1B and Sy.No.117/1C totally measuring an extent of 20 Acres 7 Guntas situated at Gummaghatta Village, Tumkuru District, Pavagada Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, under various sale deeds. 3. It is further case of the petitioners that the said lands were originally service Inam lands and re-granted in favour of one Sri. Bhimaiah by the 3rd respondent, Tahasildhar on 13.11.1981 with a condition that the said lands shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years w.e.f. 07.08.1978. The vendor Sri. Bhimaiah has sought permission from the 3rd respondent to alienate the said lands and accordingly the permission was granted on 03.03.1989 to alienate the said lands. Thereafter, the petitioners have purchased the said lands, the things stood thus, the Executive Officer, Pavagada Taluk, Panchayat issued a notice dated 20.08.2015 calling upon the 1st petitioner to come forward and execute a sale deed in respect of land measuring 3 acres 30 guntas which forms part of the land owned by the 1st petitioner on the ground that the 1st petitioner had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the Taluk Panchayat, Pavagada Taluk. 4. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner No.1 herein preferred W.P. 55286/2016 before this Court and this Court has granted an interim order dated 26.10.2016 directing the respondents not to precipitate the matter and even though the said W.P.55286/2016 was pending before this Court, the 2nd respondent without notice and without hearing the petitioners has proceeded to pass the impugned order as per Annexure ‘D’ dated 06.05.2017. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Sri. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Sri. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner forfeiting the lands of the petitioners exercising the power conferred under the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, is totally without jurisdiction and he is not the competent authority in view of the Notification issued by the State Government on 29.08.1979, the Competent Authority is the Tahsildar and not the Deputy Commissioner. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner forfeiting the land to the State Government is without giving an opportunity of hearing as required under Rule 5-A(i) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. Per contra, Sri. A.G. Shivanna, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that the Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order has not provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 5-A(i) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961. The said fair submission is placed on record. 8. Without adverting the rival contentions of both the counsel appearing for the parties on merits of the case, it is suffice to quash the impugned order only on the short ground that while passing the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has not issued any notice and an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Rule 5-A(i) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules, 1961. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is in violation of principle of natural justice and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 06.05.2017 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Deputy Commissioner shall consider his jurisdiction/competency as per the Government Order dated 29.08.1979 as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. All the contentions raised by both the parties are left open. Since, these petitions are disposed of, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration. Hence, I.A.No.1/2017 is also disposed of.