ORDER : The petitioner is a purchaser of lands through sale deed dated 14.06.1989 for an extent of 10 guntas and 10.02.1992 for an extent of 30 guntas. Proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the grant stating that the sale deed was executed in violation of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (herein after referred to as the `Act’ for short) by the grantees before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner is said to have allowed the said application and after having recorded a finding that the said sale deeds have been executed in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, directed that proceedings be initiated to restore the land to the legal representatives of the original grantee. As against the said order, petitioner had challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner by initiating proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner in case No.PTCL/CR05/201819. The petitioner states that, in the appeal proceedings, he was a beneficiary of an interim order dated 31.08.2018 and the proceedings came to be adjourned to different dates, and on 22.10.2018 matter was adjourned to 30th November, 2018. The petitioner states that without notice the proceedings have been preponed and the case advanced to 02.11.2018 and the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order vacating the interim order dated 31.08.2018 and adjourned the matter to 10.11.2018. Petitioner states that the said advancement of the date of hearing and passing of the order on 03.11.2018 was without notice to the petitioner. 2. The counsel appearing for the third respondent points out that the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner have not been conducted in a proper manner, in so far as there are number of discrepancies as regards the dates of hearing and states that on a perusal of Annexure `F’ which is the order sheet, the Deputy Commissioner on 11.10.2018 had adjourned the matter to 16.11.2018 and hence states that the entry at page No.2 of the order sheet wherein reference to proceedings having been conducted on 22.10.2018 is improper. The said respondent points out that when the matter was adjourned to 16.11.2018, without notice to any of the parties, matter could not have been called on 22.10.2018. The said respondent points out that when the matter was adjourned to 16.11.2018, without notice to any of the parties, matter could not have been called on 22.10.2018. The counsel for the third respondent also states that though as per the order at Annexure `A’, there is a reference to an interim order having been granted on 31.08.2018, the order sheet as per Annexure `F’ does not record the grant of an ex parte interim order. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is noticed that there are various discrepancies as regards allotting of dates and the manner in which proceedings have been conducted by the Deputy Commissioner does not inspire confidence. The order sheet at Annexure `F’ does indicate that on 11.10.2018 proceedings were adjourned to 16.11.2018 and the order sheet indicates that proceedings have been conducted on 22.10.2018, which is not the regular date that was assigned on 11.10.2018. The interim order that is said to have been passed on 31.08.2018 also does not find any mention in the order sheet produced at Annexure `F’. As per Annexure `A’, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 03.11.2018 has vacated the order of stay and posted the matter for further proceedings on 10.12.2018. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submission that the case was advanced without notice to him is to be accepted, that there is no material to show or forthcoming that the case was advanced with notice to the petitioner. There is no reason to doubt the submission of the petitioner. It is to be noted that appeal proceedings were pending and after the order dated 02.11.2018, petitioner states that he has been deprived of his possession. After the conclusion of the appeal proceedings, if the appeal were to be dismissed as against the petitioner herein, proceedings will have to be initiated to recover possession and subsequent proceedings are to be conducted to restore possession to the legal representatives of the original grantee. The Deputy Commissioner observes that since a caveat petition had been filed, the interim order passed by him without hearing the caveator was required to be vacated. The Deputy Commissioner observes that since a caveat petition had been filed, the interim order passed by him without hearing the caveator was required to be vacated. However, it is to be noted that even if it were to be that an interim order was passed by oversight, without notifying the caveator, the course of action available to the Deputy Commissioner was to have heard both the parties and passed a fresh order as regards the plea of interim order, since the filing of the caveat would only enable the caveator to be heard before passing of an interim order. There was no reason for passing an order to vacate the interim order and adjourn the matter. There are number of discrepancies in the procedure that is followed and hence, it would be proper to set aside the order at Annexure `A’. 6. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the prayer for interim relief afresh, after hearing both the parties and if caveat had been filed and was in order, the respondent No.3 herein who was a caveator is also to be heard before any interim order is passed. However, in view of setting aside of the order dated 03.11.2018 and noticing that the petitioner had been dispossessed pursuant to the order dated 03.11.2018, it is directed that the petitioner will have to be put back into possession and restituted. 7. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. The order at Annexure `A’ dated 03.11.2018 is set aside. 8. Both the parties to appear before the Deputy Commissioner without any further notice on 30.11.2018at 3.00p.m. The Deputy Commissioner to rehear the prayer for interim relief and to hear the caveator before passing any order as regards the interim relief. 9. In view of the petition being allowed and the interim order dated 03.11.2018 being set aside, the petitioner is at liberty to reenter and resume possession. Same would be subject to further orders to be passed in the appeal.