JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs: i) Call for the records in Case No.RUC CR 19/1994-95 dated 29.9.1994 on the file of the Tahasildar, Hosakote, in respect of land bearing Sy.no.168, measuring 5 acres 26 guntas of Harohoalli villae, Hosakote Tq. ii) Quash the order dated 17.5.2013 in case No.RUC(A):8/2011-12 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bangalore, vide Annexure-R by issue of writ of certiorari. 2. It is the case of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 that they are in possession and enjoyment of the lands measuring 1 acre 10 guntas each in Sy.No.168 situated at Harohalli village, Hosakote taluk. On 6.9.1991, they have filed applications in Form No.50 for regularization of unauthorized cultivation before the 2nd respondent. On 29.9.1994, the regularizing authority regularized the land in favour of the petitioners and respondent No.5 for different extents in Sy.No.168 of Harohalli village. Accordingly, the petitioners have paid the occupancy price on 4.2.1996 and subsequently the saguvali chit came to be issued on 12.2.1996 and thereafter, the revenue authorities acting on the regularization order and saguvali chit, entered the name of the petitioners in Mutation Register, RTC and other revenue records on 25.3.2009. 3. When things stood thus, the Tahasildar filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 108-D(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 {Rules for short}. In response to the notice, the petitioners filed objections before the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Assistant Commissioner after hearing both the parties by the impugned order dated 17.5.2013 allowed the appeal and cancelled the grant, exercising the powers under the provisions of Rule 108-K of the Rules. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri M.B. Chandra Chooda, learned counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner entertaining the appeal filed under Rule 108-D(6) of the Rules and canceling the grant exercising the powers under Rule 108-K of the Rules, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and cannot be sustained. 5. Sri M.B. Chandra Chooda, learned counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner entertaining the appeal filed under Rule 108-D(6) of the Rules and canceling the grant exercising the powers under Rule 108-K of the Rules, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and cannot be sustained. He further contended that if the Tahsildar is aggrieved by the grant made in favour of the petitioners or suspect the grant, the only remedy is before the Deputy Commissioner under the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 108-D of the Rules. Therefore, the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who is the Chairman of the regularizing Committee under the provisions of Section 108-D of the Rules, is not maintainable. He would further contend that though the regularization was made in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 along with the 5th respondent, the regularization made in favour of the 5th respondent is not touched at all and only chosen to proceed for cancellation of the grant made in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the alleged complaint made by the 6th respondent Sri H.K. Sudhakar, whose application rejected by this Court. He would further contend that the order came to be passed by the regularizing Committee as long back as on 29.9.1994. The proceedings initiated in the year 2011-12 so also canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioners by the impugned order, are unreasonable and cannot be sustained and therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned AGA while justifying the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, produced the original records which depicts that on 4.12.2010 the Tahasildar addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner about unauthorized khatha made in respect of different extents of land in Sy.No.168 of Harohalli village measuring 0.10 guntas, 1 acre 10 guntas and 1 acre 10 guntas. On the basis of the said letter, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to initiate the proceedings. The records also depicts that the Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the petitioners and others including Respondent No.5 under Rule 108-D(6) of the Rules. There is a reference to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the Revision Petition No.130/2010- 11 in the impugned order. The records also depicts that the Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the petitioners and others including Respondent No.5 under Rule 108-D(6) of the Rules. There is a reference to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the Revision Petition No.130/2010- 11 in the impugned order. He further contended that the Assistant Commissioner recorded a finding that the check list and the sketch signed by the Tahasildar are not tallying with the insertion made in the records in respect of the property in question showing the names of the petitioners and that the Tahasildar signature is forged and signatures of the previous Sheristedar and Tahasildar are also not tallying. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner suspects that there was a collusion of the Revenue Officer in inserting the names of the petitioners in the original records. Hence, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Sri A.G. Shivanna, learned counsel for Respondent No.6, on whose complaint, proceedings initiated while supporting the contentions of the learned AGA, submits that the Tahasildar written letter to the Deputy Commissioner on 4.12.2010 and on the basis of the said letter, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order in the appeal filed by the Tahasildar under Rule 108-D(6) of the Rules. He further submits that the material documents clearly depicts that the names of the petitioners inserted subsequently in the records. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that on 6.9.1991 the petitioners have filed Form No.50 before the regularizing committee Respondent No.2. On 29.9.1994 the regularizing committee headed by the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to regularize lands belonging to 72 persons in different villages. The proceedings at Sl.No.10 are in respect of Sy.No.168 of Harohalli village and the Committee has come to the conclusion that the applicants are eligible for regularization of the said land. Accordingly by a unanimous resolution, the 2nd respondent recommended for regularization of an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in favour of the 1st petitioner Sri Kanakaraju and 1 acre 10 guntas in favour of the 2nd petitioner Smt. Shyla and 10 guntas in favour of Respondent No.5 - Gowramma in Sy.No.168 of Harohalli village. Annexure-D is the certified copy of the Proceedings before the Tahasildar, wherein the Tahasildar has signed on 29.9.1994. 9. Annexure-D is the certified copy of the Proceedings before the Tahasildar, wherein the Tahasildar has signed on 29.9.1994. 9. On perusal of the original register maintained to receive Form-50 applications, at Serial Nos.4376, 4377 and 4378 the names of 1st petitioner, Respondent No.5 and 2nd petitioner are respectively shown. In the Saguvali Chit Issue Register at page 254, Serial No.1659/99-2000 depicts the name of Smt. Smt. Shyla (2nd petitioner) and Serial No.1660/99-2000 depicts the name of Sri Kanakaraju (1st petitioner) and Serial No.1661/99-2000 depicts the name of Smt. Gowramma (5th respondent). 10. If the contention of the learned AGA is accepted that there is insertion in the Register maintained to receive Form No.50 applications and also in the Saguvali Chit Issue register, this Court is afraid as to how the general public, that too the petitioners who are villagers can have access to the said original Ledgers maintained by the Tahasildar. The Assistant Commissioner has recorded that there is collusion with the concerned officials in inserting the names of the petitioners in the original records. If it is so, what is the action taken against the concerned officials is not forthcoming. The fact remains that in the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner referred the letter dated 4.12.2000 written by the Tahasildar to the Deputy Commissioner so also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.130/2010-11. 11. By careful perusal of the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 108-D of the Rules, it clearly depicts that the appeal against the orders made by the Tahasildar on the recommendations of the Committee or Additional Committee shall lie to the Assistant Commissioner, provided that in case the Chairman of the Additional Committee was Assistant Commissioner, then appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner. 12. Admittedly in the proceedings of the regularizing Committee as per Annexure-D, the Assistant Commissioner was the Chairman of the Committee. Therefore, the appeal should have been filed before the Deputy Commissioner and not before the same Committee, who granted regularization. When the Tahasidlar is aggrieved or if the Tahasildar after verifying the records suspected the said grant, he can very well recommend either to the Deputy Commissioner or the competent Authority to take action in accordance with law. In the present case, there is procedural irregularity. When the Tahasidlar is aggrieved or if the Tahasildar after verifying the records suspected the said grant, he can very well recommend either to the Deputy Commissioner or the competent Authority to take action in accordance with law. In the present case, there is procedural irregularity. The records depicts the receipt of Form No.50 applications from the petitioners and issue of the saguvali chit by the concerned authority during the course of official business. Therefore, the presumption has to be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 13. Be that as it may, since the procedure adopted by the Tahasildar in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner is bad in law and the said appeal is not maintainable, it is for the competent authority to file appeal before the Deputy Commissioner as contemplated under the proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 108-D of the Rules and proceed in accordance with law. 14. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner initiating the proceedings under the provisions of Rule 108-D(6) of the Rules and issuing notice to the petitioners and canceling the grant, exercising the powers under the provisions of Rule 108-K of the Rules, are all erroneous and contrary to the material on record and the same cannot be accepted. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.5.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in Case No.RUC(A): 8/2011-12 is hereby quashed. However, it is open for the competent authority to initiate proceedings, if so advised in accordance with law after giving notice and hearing to all the concerned and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.