ORDER : 1. Petitioners in this writ petition call in question an order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi whereby the lands belonging to the petitioners are sought to be forfeited in favour of the Government invoking the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Enemy Property Act, 1968. 2. Adumbrated in brief the factual background facts as projected by the petitioners are as follows: The petitioners are the owners of the following properties to the following extent: Petitioner No. 1 purchased Sy. No. 1359/P1/6 measuring 9 acres 14 guntas, Sy. No. 1359/P1/7 measuring 3 acres and Sy. No. 1359/P1/8 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas, totally measuring 18 acres 34 guntas; Petitioner No. 2 purchased Sy. No. 1359/P1/4 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas and Sy. No. 1359/P1/5 measuring 12 acres 17 guntas, totally measuring 15 acres 23 guntas; Petitioner No. 3 purchased Sy. No. 1362/3 measuring 10 acres 28 guntas; Petitioner No. 4 purchased Sy. No. 1359/P1/1 measuring 3 acres 3 guntas, Sy. No. 1359/P1/2 measuring 9 acres 20 guntas and Sy. No. 1359/P1/3 measuring 3 acres, totally measuring 15 acres 23 guntas; petitioner No. 5 purchased Sy. No. 1359/P2/2 measuring 12 acres 11 guntas, all situated at Raichur village, Tq. and District: Raichur. All of whom were purchased in terms of the Sale Deed dated 30.07.2011. 3. The brief background to the purchase of the aforesaid properties as pleaded are as follows: One Tayappa S/o Hanumayya Harijan, Beerappa S/o Huligeppa Kuruba, Timmayya, S/o Ramayya Wadder and Yenkappa S/o Hanumantha filed form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Raichur claiming that they were cultivating the lands in Sy. Nos. 1359/1 and 1359/2 under one Khazi Gulam Dastagir S/o Khazi Gulam Ahmed. Upon service of notice by the Land Tribunal, the landlord appeared before the Tribunal and contested the matter. After trial, the Land Tribunal ordered granting of occupancy rights to Tayappa in respect of Sy. No. 1359/1 to an extent of 18 acres and Sy. No. 1359/2 to Timmayya to an extent of 6 acres and the claim of one Venkatappa was rejected, all the above by the order of the Land Tribunal dated 07.09.1976. 4. After trial, the Land Tribunal ordered granting of occupancy rights to Tayappa in respect of Sy. No. 1359/1 to an extent of 18 acres and Sy. No. 1359/2 to Timmayya to an extent of 6 acres and the claim of one Venkatappa was rejected, all the above by the order of the Land Tribunal dated 07.09.1976. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal, Raichur one of the co-sharer Kazi Mohammed Abdul Rasool Siddique, who was not a party before the Land Tribunal approached this Court in W.P. No. 10155/1976 through his GPA Holder contending that the lands were inam lands and after abolition of inams in terms of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, Khazi Ghulam Dastagir and Kazi Mohammed Abdul Rasool Siddiqui were granted occupancy rights over these very lands and thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 therein had filed their claims in Form No. 7. 5. It was further contended that the lands were originally inam lands and regranted to them. This Court by an order dated 23.01.1980 set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry into the claims of the aforesaid two people who are respondents 4 and 5 therein and other claimants who were claiming occupancy rights over the same lands. 6. After the remand, the Land Tribunal, Raichur again passed an order granting occupancy rights in favour of Harijan Tayappa, Thimmayya and Beerappa who were applicants in Form No. 7 by its order dated 10.02.1982. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.1982, the said Khazi Mahammed Ahmed Rasool Siddique, Sri. Khaji Ghulam Siddique and Sri. Khaji Ghulam Ahmed Dastagir filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 3802/1982, W.P. No. 40174/1982 and W.P. No. 40175/1982. This Court by an order dated 09.04.1997 again remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal by setting aside the order of granting occupancy rights to the applicants aforesaid. 7. After the remand proceedings, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 19.11.2003 rejected the claim of the applicants who had filed Form No. 7. This was called in question before this Court in W.P. No. 27866/2004. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No. 6 filed an impleading application to come on record as an interested person in the proceedings. This was called in question before this Court in W.P. No. 27866/2004. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No. 6 filed an impleading application to come on record as an interested person in the proceedings. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the applicants of Form No. 7 against whom the Land Tribunal had passed orders and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.03.2011. 8. After withdrawal of the writ petition, a writ appeal was preferred by the very same petitioners who had withdrawn the writ petition seeking restoration of the writ petition by recalling the order dated 21.03.2011. This writ appeal was dismissed by an order dated 06.06.2013. Thereafter, applications were filed to recall the said order which also came to be dismissed. 9. After dismissal of the writ petition on 21.03.2011, revenue entries were effected in the name of the legal representatives who later on, executed sale deeds in terms of circular dated 25.04.1991. It is by virtue of these sale deeds, the petitioners herein came in possession of the lands. 10. Respondent No. 6 through one Sri. Manasayya, the President of Karnataka State Raitha Sangha, Raichur files a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner complaining that the purchasers of the property in question had purchased the same in violation of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Assistant commissioner entertained the complaint, conducted an enquiry and after hearing all the parties, passed an order that there was no violation of Section 79A and B by his order dated 16.08.2017. 11. This was called in question by the respondent No. 6 before this Court. This Court by order dated 03.07.2018 directed consideration of representation of sixth respondent and also enquire as to whether there was any violation of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. 12. On remand, the Regional Commissioner heard the parties and notwithstanding the objections and written arguments filed by the petitioners, passed an order on 28.01.2019 holding that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was not in accordance with law and further held that the property is an evacuee property and directed respondent No. 4 to enquire and pass orders in respect of vesting the land with the Government within 30 days and revert back with a report to the Regional Commissioner. It is this order that is called in question in the subject writ petition. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 14. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners would contend that the order of the Regional commissioner is wholly without jurisdiction as he invokes the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 in his order on 28.01.2019 which had stood repealed in the year 2005 itself. It is his further contention that none of the submissions made by the petitioners are even considered by the fourth respondent-Deputy Commissioner and would vehemently argue the fact that this Court had remitted the matter back to his hands only to enquire about whether there was violation of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the Commissioner went beyond his brief and directed proceedings for vesting of the lands with the Government to be undertaken. 15. Per-contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 would in unison contend that the lands sold claiming to be inamdars were contrary to law and the order was in tune with the direction issued by this Court, which required the respondent to decide on perusal of the Government records. Since adequate opportunity was given to all the stake holders, it is their submission that the order does not require any interference, as it is only a direction to initiate proceedings for vesting of the land with the Government. 16. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 17. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and would not require its reiteration except to the extent of the orders passed by this Court which are germane to be noticed. 18. The genesis of the proceedings before this Court was when certain applicants filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Raichur claiming occupancy rights which was granted to a few and rejected to a few. This became the subject matter of writ petition No. 10155/1976, which was filed by one Sri. 18. The genesis of the proceedings before this Court was when certain applicants filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Raichur claiming occupancy rights which was granted to a few and rejected to a few. This became the subject matter of writ petition No. 10155/1976, which was filed by one Sri. Kazi Mohammed Abdul Rasool Siddique contending that the lands were inam lands and in terms of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 the Khaji Ghulam Dastagir and Khazi Ghulam Ahmed Siddiqui were granted occupancy rights and thereafter, Form No. 7 was filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in that writ petition. 19. This Court in W.P. No. 10155/1976 by an order dated 23.01.1980 allowed the writ petition by the following order: “The land owners have failed to establish that they have been cultivating/supervising the cultivation personally and no evidence of documents have been produced in support of the same. The tenant petitioners (1) Thayappa S/o Hanumayya R/o Aralabenchi (2) Thimmayya Waddar S/o Jambanna R/o Aralibenchi, (3) Beerappa S/o Huligappa s/o Aralibenchi have in the individual statement recorded on oath have deposed that they have been cultivating the said lands to the extent which was already granted to them by the land Tribunal earlier. Their statement are corroborated by the witness Lachappa S/o Lachamyya r/o Aralibenchi and adjoining the pattedar of the suit lands. Another witness and adjoining the pattedar Maranna S/o Ramanna r/o Aralibenchi also corroborates the statement of the tenant petitioners. The Tribunal visited the village on 10-2-82 after due notice and conducted local.....and recorded the statement on oath of the spot witnesses.....(1) Suganna s/o Sabanna (2) Eranna S/o Naganna (3) Sannappa S/o Dullayya (4) Devendrappa s/o Maranna all are residents of Aralibenchi village. They depose that the tenant petitioners have been cultivated the suit lands as tenants on crop share basis since about 10-15-20 years. This the Tribunal consider that the entire extent of suit lands bearing Survey Nos. 1359/1 and 1359/2 of Raichur village are tenants lands under cultivation by the Tenant Petitioners as tenants they are entitled for occupancy rights of the Land. Further though u/s 141 of KLR Act the Land Tribunal is prohibited from reopening question already settled under the Inam Abolition Act the Tribunal has jurisdiction in such matters. 1359/1 and 1359/2 of Raichur village are tenants lands under cultivation by the Tenant Petitioners as tenants they are entitled for occupancy rights of the Land. Further though u/s 141 of KLR Act the Land Tribunal is prohibited from reopening question already settled under the Inam Abolition Act the Tribunal has jurisdiction in such matters. The Tribunal is competent to examine the claim after looking into the facts and circumstances emerging from such examination 1977 (1) Kar. L.J. and AIR 1977 Kar 137 . Though the Patta of the Inam Land was granted, the Tribunal is competent to examination whether it is a tenanted land on 1-3-74 and if it is found to be so the tribunal has jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights of the such lands to the tenants. ORDER: In view of the above fact, the Tribunal grants the occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 1359/1 and 1359/2 of Raichur village as noted against each: Sy. No. (1) Harijan Thayappa S/o Hanumayya 1359/1 1359/2 (2) Thimmayya S/o Jambanna Waddar 1359/1 (3) Beerappa S/o Huligappa 1359/1 1359/2 Order pronounced in the open Court.” After the remand, the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights to Harijan Tayappa, Thimmayya and Beerappa by its order dated 10.02.1982. This became subject matter of three wit petitions in W.P. No. 3802/1982, W.P. No. 40174/1982 and W.P. No. 40175/1982 which were filed by the persons who had been granted occupancy rights under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. These writ petitions were allowed and the order impugned was quashed and the matters were again remitted back to the Land Tribunal on 09.04.1997. 20. On its remand, again, a detailed order is passed by the Land Tribunal on 19.11.2003 granting occupancy rights to a few of the applicants and denying the same to a few. The order of the Land Tribunal reads as follows: This was called in question in W.P. No. 27866/2004 during the pendency of which, the sixth respondent comes into picture on the strength of him being a complainant before the Land Tribunal. This writ petition was withdrawn on 21.03.2011. Despite withdrawal of the same, appeal was filed for recalling of the order in the writ petition, which also came to be dismissed and application to recall the dismissal of the order in writ appeal was also dismissed. This writ petition was withdrawn on 21.03.2011. Despite withdrawal of the same, appeal was filed for recalling of the order in the writ petition, which also came to be dismissed and application to recall the dismissal of the order in writ appeal was also dismissed. After 21.03.2011, the date on which the applicants of Form No. 7 withdrew the writ petition, the petitioners herein purchased the property in terms of the sale deed mentioned (supra). 21. Therefore, the finding of the Land Tribunal, Raichur dated 19.11.2003, as extracted hereinabove, attained finality. After the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, revenue entries were changed in the names of the legal representatives of the landlords/inamdars who later on executed sale deeds. 22. It is the contention of the petitioners that those sale deeds were executed in terms of a circular dated 25.04.1991 which did not require prior permission to sell the land. The sixth respondent not stopping even after all these proceedings, filed a complaint before the Assistant commissioner taking up a new plea that the lands that were purchased by the petitioners herein were purchased in violation of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as according to the sixth respondent, the purchasers i.e. petitioners herein all belong to very rich landlord families and they could not have purchased the land in violation of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. 23. The Assistant Commissioner, Raichur subdivision entertaining the complaint conducted an enquiry and came to conclude by his order dated 16.08.2017 that there was no violation of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in the sale transactions of the petitioners. 24. The sixth respondent, again filed writ petition in W.P. No. 208443/2017 and connected cases arraigning the petitioners herein as respondents and sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the revenue authorities of the State to initiate appropriate action declaring all the transactions with regard to the lands (supra) as null and void. This Court by its order dated 03.07.2018 directed the second respondent therein only to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners and the respondents. The order passed by this Court reads as follows: “4. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that appropriate relief is called for. This Court by its order dated 03.07.2018 directed the second respondent therein only to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners and the respondents. The order passed by this Court reads as follows: “4. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that appropriate relief is called for. If the land belongs to respondent Nos.5 to 9 lawfully, certainly no relief could be granted to the petitioner. On the contrary, if the plea of the petitioner that the land belongs to the Government and has been wrongly being taken away by respondent Nos.5 to 9 is correct, then necessary action is called for. 5. However, it is only for the respondent No. 2 to decide that question based on the governmental records. It is for him to record finding to the said effect. Therefore, it is just and necessary that respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the representation in terms of Annexure-E and pass appropriate orders thereon. 6. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. Respondent No. 2 to consider the representation vide Annexure-E and pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing the petitioner and the respondents if necessary. For this purpose the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 9 to appear before respondent No. 2 on 23.07.2018.” By the aforesaid order, the second respondent therein the Regional commissioner, Kalaburagi was directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing the petitioners and the respondents, if necessary and directed appearance of the parties before him on 23.07.2018. 25. It is thereafter, the proceedings were taken up by the Regional Commissioner. Plethora of documents were placed before the Regional Commissioner as also the written arguments by the respective parties. All along the plea of the sixth respondent was with regard to violation of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and was the same even before the Regional Commissioner as this Court had directed to consider the representation given by the petitioner therein who was the sixth respondent herein and that representation was primarily concerning violation of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and inter-alia casually contended that the property was an enemy property. 26. 26. The Regional Commissioner claiming to be considering the representation given by the sixth respondent and claiming to be considering the written arguments placed before him, completely deviated himself in bringing the proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and held it to be an enemy property and directed proceedings to be taken up for vesting of the land at the hands of the Government. 27. Since the order impugned is passed in terms of Section 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and holding it to be an enemy property, it has become necessary to consider those enactments. 28. The Administration of Evacuee Property Act was promulgated in the year 1950 in the wake of partition of the Nation as to who could be the custodian of those properties. The Government of India by its notification dated 05.09.2005 repealed five enactments all promulgated between 1950 and 1954. The first of the Act that was repealed was the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The repealing Act reads as follows: “1. Short title - This Act may be called the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005. 2. Repeal of enactments - The enactments specified in the Schedule are hereby repealed. SCHEDULE (See Section 2) REPEAL OF ENACTMENTS S. No. Name of the Act Year Act No. 1. The Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 31 2. The Displaced Persons (Claims) Act 1950 44 3. The Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act 1951 64 4. The Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act 1954 12 5. The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954 44 1. Received the assent of the President on 5-9-2005 and published in the Gazette of India, Extra. Part II, Section 1, dated 6-9-2005, pp. 1-2, No. 44. 2. Repealed by Act 4 of 2018, S. 3 and Sch. II, dated 8-1-2018.” Therefore, the proceedings taken up and the order passed by the Regional commissioner holding that the property will have to be administered under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 was without jurisdiction as the Regional commissioner invokes an enactment in the year 2019 which had long ago stood repealed in the year 2005. 29. There cannot be any better example of the authorities passing orders in a reckless manner. The order impugned bears the stamp of non-application of mind as the order refers to proceedings initiated under a repealed enactment. 29. There cannot be any better example of the authorities passing orders in a reckless manner. The order impugned bears the stamp of non-application of mind as the order refers to proceedings initiated under a repealed enactment. It is expected of the authorities to verify the enactments before they could blindly initiate proceedings and follow it. The other enactment, though not specifically mentioned to, is the Enemy Property Act, 1968 which the Regional Commissioner refers to hold the subject property to be an enemy property. 30. An Enemy Property is dealt with under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and insofar as they are germane for a consideration of the subject lis are extracted hereunder for the purpose of quick reference: “2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) “Custodian” means the Custodian of Enemy Property for India appointed or deemed, to have been appointed under Section 3 and includes a Deputy Custodian and an Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property appointed or deemed to have been appointed under that section. (b) “enemy” or “enemy subject” or “enemy firm” means a person or country who or which was an enemy, [an enemy subject including his legal heir and successor whether or not a citizen of India or the citizen of a country which is not an enemy or the enemy, enemy subject or his legal heir and successor who has changed his nationality] or [an enemy firm, including its succeeding firm whether or not partners or members of such succeeding firm are citizen of India or the citizen of a country which is not an enemy or such firm which has changed its nationality], as the case may be, under the Defence of India Act, 1962, and the Defence of India Rules, 1962 [or the Defence of India Act, 1971 (42 of 1971) and the Defence of India Rules, 1971], but [does not include a citizen of India other than those citizens of India, being the legal heir and successor of the “enemy” or “enemy subject” or “enemy firm”]. (c) “enemy property” means any property for the time being belonging to or held or managed on behalf of an enemy, an enemy subject or an enemy firm: Provided that where an individual enemy subject dies in the territories to which this Act extends [or dies in any territory outside India], any property which immediately before his death, belonged to or was held by him or was managed on his behalf, may, notwithstanding his death, continue to be regarded as enemy property for the purposes of this Act. (d) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act. 3. Appointment of Custodian of Enemy Property for India and Deputy Custodian, etc. - The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Custodian of Enemy Property for India and one or more Deputy Custodians and Assistant Custodians of Enemy Property for such local areas as may be specified in the notification: Provided that the Custodian of Enemy Property for India and any Deputy Custodian or Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property appointed under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 [or the Defence of India Rules, 1971, as the case may be], shall be deemed to have been appointed under this section. 4. Appointment of Inspectors of Enemy Property - The Central Government may, either generally or for any particular area, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint one or more Inspectors of Enemy Property for securing compliance with the provisions of this Act and may, by general or special order, provide for the distribution and allocation of the work to be performed by them for securing such compliance: Provided that every Inspector of Enemy Firms appointed under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 [or the Defence of India Rules, 1971, as the case may be], shall be deemed to be an Inspector of Enemy Property appointed under this section. 5. Property vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 to continue to vest in Custodian: (1) Notwithstanding the expiration of the Defence of India Act, 1962 and the Defence of India Rules, 1962 (51 of 1962), all enemy property vested before such expiration in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India appointed under the said Rules and continuing to vest in him immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall, as from such commencement, vest in the Custodian. (2) Notwithstanding the expiration of the Defence of India Act, 1971 (42 of 1971) and the Defence of India Rules, 1971, all enemy property vested before such expiration in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India appointed under the said rules and continuing to vest in him immediately before the commencement of the Enemy Property (Amendment) Act, 1977 shall, as from such commencement, vest in the custodian. (3) The enemy property vested in the Custodian shall, notwithstanding that the enemy or the enemy subject or the enemy firm has ceased to be an enemy due to death, extinction, winding up of business or change of nationality or that the legal heir and successor is a citizen of India or the citizen of a country which is not an enemy, continue to remain, save as otherwise provided in this Act, vested in the Custodian. Explanation - For the purposes of this subsection “enemy property vested in the Custodian” shall include and shall always be deemed to have been included all rights, titles, and interests in, or any benefit arising out of, such property vested in him under this Act. 5-A. Issue of certificate by Custodian - The Custodian may, after making such inquiry as he deems necessary, by order, declare that the property of the enemy or the enemy subject or the enemy firm described in the order, vests in him under this Act and issue a certificate to this effect and such certificate shall be the evidence of the facts stated therein.” (Emphasis supplied) In terms of the afore-extracted mandate of the statute the emphasis is on the custodian of the enemy property. Who is a custodian is defined under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act directs that the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint a custodian of enemy property for India. The Regional Commissioner is not the one who is notified to be the custodian for the enemy property in India. To declare a particular property to be an enemy property, proceedings are required to be instituted by the custodian in terms of the Act. Section 5 indicates that the vesting of enemy property “vested before such expiration in the custodian of the enemy property for India.” Section 8 deals with power of the custodian in respect of enemy property vested in him. Section 5 indicates that the vesting of enemy property “vested before such expiration in the custodian of the enemy property for India.” Section 8 deals with power of the custodian in respect of enemy property vested in him. Section 12 of the Act vests power with the custodian to inform any person regarding of vesting of any money or property in the custodian by way of a certificate issued under Section 5A of the Act. Unless the property is identified and prescribed by way of a notification or an order passed by the Government the vesting does not automatically take place even under the Defence of India Act or the Rules. The Regional Commissioner does not refer to his power as the custodian or prescription by the Government of India for the property in question to be an enemy property. 31. A perusal at the order impugned passed by the Regional Commissioner bears no reference or a consideration in the manner in which it is necessary under the Enemy Property Act to declare the property belonging to the petitioners to be an enemy property apart from the fact that the Regional Commissioner having not been appointed as the custodian for enemy property in India could not have at his whim instituted proceedings even under the Enemy Property Act. 32. It is incomprehensible as to how the Regional Commissioner could have drawn the proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 which had by then stood repealed holding it to be a enemy property even under the Enemy Property Act, 1968 as amended from time to time. It was a duty cast upon the Regional Commissioner to have examined the provisions of the Act and not go by vague assertions made in a representation given by the sixth respondent. The pleading before him of all the parties were either allegations of violation of Inams Abolition Act, Land Reforms Act and a feign attempt was made to contend that the property was an enemy property. 33. It is now necessary to consider the locus of the sixth respondent in the proceedings. The pleading before him of all the parties were either allegations of violation of Inams Abolition Act, Land Reforms Act and a feign attempt was made to contend that the property was an enemy property. 33. It is now necessary to consider the locus of the sixth respondent in the proceedings. The sixth respondent who admittedly has no interest or locus in the property and not withstanding this admitted fact, enters into an agreement dated 31.03.2003 (Annexure S3) with the tenants/applicants who had lost their tenancy rights, loss of which had attained finality before this Court in W.P. No. 27866/2004 in terms of the order dated 21.03.2011 agreeing to bear all legal expenses for raking up the issue that they had lost by an indirect method and in exchange taking huge benefit of the outcome of the litigation. The sixth respondent identifies the subject property of 40 acres undertakes to manage the Court expenses and in the event the tenants succeeds in the litigation generated by him, the tenants would part with 50% of the land in his favour. Therefore, the sixth respondent in the light of the afore-narrated facts cannot but be termed to be a busybody. In furtherance of the agreement the sixth respondent threw a ball in the ring and generated the present litigation by giving representations to the authorities concerned for annulling the proceedings of sale of the subject property in favour of the petitioners. One such representation given by the sixth respondent has resulted in these impugned proceedings. 34. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice the fact that quite often, unscrupulous litigants, busybodies meddlesome interlopers masquerading as genuine litigants give a representation and knock the doors of this Court by seeking an innocuous prayer of consideration of a representation by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. In the wake of paucity of time, for a deeper delving into the matter, the Courts often lend its hands to such litigants by directing consideration of such representation which is misused by such litigants. 35. This case is a classic illustration as to what can become of an innocuous order of consideration of representation. The sixth respondent who was the beneficiary of the order of consideration of his representation by the second respondent, misuses the said order by conniving with pliable authorities resulting in the impugned illegal proceedings. 35. This case is a classic illustration as to what can become of an innocuous order of consideration of representation. The sixth respondent who was the beneficiary of the order of consideration of his representation by the second respondent, misuses the said order by conniving with pliable authorities resulting in the impugned illegal proceedings. This leaves me without a shadow of doubt that the impugned lisis nothing but a litigation generated with ulterior motive and for extraneous considerations by the sixth respondent. 36. In view of the preceding analysis, the order impugned of the Regional commissioner dated 28.01.2019 warrants appropriate interference. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER: (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned Order bearing No. Kam/PraAaKa/Inam/101/2017-18/12341 dated 28.01.2019 passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed. (iii) All further proceedings taken pursuant to the impugned order also stand quashed.