ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. In these writ petitions, petitioners are calling in question the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, Hassan, in the appeal filed by respondents 4, 6 to 8, 13 & 14 herein whereby the appeal was allowed setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan, on 19.03.2003. 2. Brief facts pertaining to the dispute are that land bearing Sy.No.244 situated at Satyamangala Village is a gomal land. Petitioner No. 1 claims that he was in occupation of 1 acre 10 guntas, whereas petitioner No. 2 claims that he was cultivating 2 acres 10 guntas of said land right from 1983-84 continuously. They submitted two applications seeking regularization of their occupation and for grant of the said land. It is the case of petitioners that applications filed by them were considered by the Committee and the lands in their unauthorised occupation were ordered to be regularized vide proceedings dated 15.07.1996 and 16.07.1997 of the Committee constituted for regularization of unauthorised occupation. 3. This order was challenged by six persons namely Chikkegowda s/o. Karigowda, Manjegowda s/o. Channegowda, Ramesh s/o. Halagegowda (respondent No. 10 herein), Sathya s/o. Bommegowda (respondent No. 11 herein), Mallesha s/o. Subbegowda (respondent No. 13 herein) and Narayana s/o. Chikkegowda (respondent No. 12 herein). The Assistant Commissioner heard the appeal and passed order dated 19.03.2003 dismissing the appeal insofar as subject land bearing Sy.No.244 is concerned. This order was challenged by the Adyaksha of Gram Panchayat namely S.V. Keshavegowda - respondent No. 4 herein along with other residents of the village who are arrayed herein as respondents 4, 6 to 8, 13 & 14. 4. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the order under challenge produced at Annexure-A setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and cancelling the proceedings of the Committee for regularization of unauthorised occupation and the order passed resulting in grant of land in unauthorised occupation of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. On perusal of the entire materials on record, it emerges that the Deputy Commissioner has recorded findings based on materials on record that petitioners herein were not the residents of Satyamangala Village and that the land granted in favour of petitioners was situated within the radius of about 1 to 1 km from Hassan Town Municipal limits. The Deputy Commissioner has specifically pointed out that the land could not have been granted and the alleged unauthorised occupation could not have been regularised as the lands were located within the radius of about 1 to 1 km from Hassan Town Municipal limits. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners points out that the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable. He urges that no such appeal was maintainable before the Deputy Commissioner either under Section 49 or Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. He further urges that petitioners herein had established that they were the residents of Satyamangala Village and were in unauthorised occupation of the lands in question and therefore, at the instance of some of the villagers of Satyamangala Village, the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have entertained the appeal. 7. A careful perusal of Sections 49 & 50 of the Act would disclose that, whereas Section 49 of the Act provides for an appeal from original orders passed under the Act or the Rules made thereunder to specified authorities, Section 50 provides for a second appeal against any order passed in first appeal under Section 49. A second appeal lies against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner. Contention of the petitioner is that as Rule 108D(6) of the Rules provides for an appeal against the order made by the Tahsildar on the recommendations of the Committee for unauthorised occupation to the Assistant Commissioner and no further appeal is provided against the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, a second appeal under Section 50 could not have been entertained by the Deputy Commissioner. The second appeal under Section 50 of the Act is provided against any order passed in the first appeal. Mere fact that the Rule does not provide for a second appeal cannot be construed as Bar for the Deputy Commissioner to entertain a second appeal. The second appeal under Section 50 of the Act is provided against any order passed in the first appeal. Mere fact that the Rule does not provide for a second appeal cannot be construed as Bar for the Deputy Commissioner to entertain a second appeal. There is nothing to show that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is made final. In the scheme of the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, particularly in Chapter-V, appeal has been provided from different revenue officers depending on the hierarchy making it clear that if the order is passed by the Revenue Officers subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, appeal would lie to the Assistant Commissioner and from that of the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner and from the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tribunal. It is thus apparent that the Deputy Commissioner has entertained the appeal being a superior officer to the Assistant Commissioner against an order passed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the contention now sought to be urged by the learned counsel for petitioners stating that the Deputy Commissioner had no power or jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner cannot be accepted. 8. Insofar as merits of the matter is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner has examined various contentions of the respective parties and has recorded that present petitioners were not residents of Satyamangala Village. More particularly, the specific findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that the land was located within the radius of 1 to 1 km from Hassan Town Municipal limits would come in the way of entertaining any grievance sought to be made by the petitioners in these writ petitions because regularization of unauthorised occupation of such lands which are situated within the vicinity of the town cannot be ordered. 9. There is no material placed before the Court by the petitioners to show that the lands in question are situated beyond 5 kms. from the radius of Hassan Town Municipal limits. There is also no material placed before the Court by the petitioners to show that they were the ordinary residents of Satyamangala Village during the relevant period to enable them to claim regularization of their alleged unauthorized occupation in respect of land situated in Satyamangala Village. from the radius of Hassan Town Municipal limits. There is also no material placed before the Court by the petitioners to show that they were the ordinary residents of Satyamangala Village during the relevant period to enable them to claim regularization of their alleged unauthorized occupation in respect of land situated in Satyamangala Village. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner does not call for any interference as there is no illegality committed in passing the said order. 10. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed.