ORDER : S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J. 1. This petition by the second respondent in Appeal No.429/2015 is directed against the impugned order dated 7 th July, 2020 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short “KAT”), whereby the said appeal filed by respondents No.2 to 7/appellants was allowed by the KAT which set aside the order dated 06.03.2015 passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, after giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity to respondents No.2 to 7. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 7 and learned counsel for the impleading applicants. Perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 06.03.2015, the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner restored the katha/phada in favour of the petitioners herein in relation to the subject lands bearing Sy.No.16 measuring 24.16 acres (excluding kharab of 3.27 Acres) and Sy.No.17 measuring 7.04 Acres (excluding kharab of 0.14 Acres) situated at Nagenahalli village, which were their ancestral joint family properties. Aggrieved by the said order dated 06.03.2015 passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner, respondents No.2 to 7 approached the KAT vide aforesaid Rev.Appeal No.429/2015. In the said appeal, respondents No.2 to 7 specifically contended that the said order dated 06.03.2015 was passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner in violation of principles of natural justice and without providing any opportunity to respondents No.2 to 7/appellants before passing the impugned order. 4. The said appeal having been opposed by the petitioner herein, KAT proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remitting the matter back to the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh on the ground that sufficient and reasonable opportunity had not been provided to respondents No.2 to 7. 5. While passing the aforesaid order, the KAT has held as under: “6. Point No.1: The primary ground on which the Appellants have challenged the impugned order is that the 1 st Respondent, without giving any notice, without giving an opportunity of being heard and contrary to the principles of natural justice has passed the impugned order. If this ground made out by the Appellant is accepted, then the question of considering the matter on merits does not arise. If this ground made out by the Appellant is accepted, then the question of considering the matter on merits does not arise. Therefore, first of all it is necessary to find out that there is any force in the said ground raised by the Appellants. 7. From the impugned order, it appears that the 2 nd Respondent herein claiming to be the legal heir of deceased Chikka S/o. Karedar, had filed his representation dated 08.11.2012 with a prayer to restore the Khatha of the lands in question in his favour as per the provisions of Rule-119(2) of the Rules. Further, it is not in dispute that the 1 st Appellant claiming to be the legal heir of Junjamma, the original owner of the lands in question, had also filed his application for restoration of the Khatha of the said lands in his favour and even he had filed his objections, opposing the claim of the 2 nd Respondent herein. 8. The 1 st Respondent after referring the applications of the Appellant No.1, Respondent No.2, considering the reports of the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, orders of the Hon’ble High Court, Land Acquisition Notification issued by the KIADB, opinion of legal advisor etc., passed the impugned order in favour of the 2 nd Respondent herein, restoring the Khatha of the lands in question in favour of Chikka S/o.Karedar, however observed that the said order shall be subject to the final decision of the Civil Court in O.S.No.1090/2011. 9. Nowhere, in the impugned order or in the lower court records we find any material to show that the 1 st Respondent, before passing of the impugned order had given notice to the Appellants herein, to put forth their case. It is well settled principles of law that whenever any authority, empowered to adjudicate any matter, then such authority shall follow the principles of natural justice. If any claim is put forth by one party and the similar claim is also put forth by another party or the second party files any objections to the claim of the first party, then it is for the authority to adjudicate the said dispute by holding summary enquiry by giving an opportunity of being heard to both parties. 10. In this case, the 1 st Respondent has not given any such opportunity of being heard to the Appellants herein before passing of the impugned order. 10. In this case, the 1 st Respondent has not given any such opportunity of being heard to the Appellants herein before passing of the impugned order. On the other hand, he simply referred the application of the 1 st Appellant, his objections as against the claim of the 2 nd Respondent and passed the impugned order mainly on the reports of the Tahsildar, Tumkur, Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur, opinion of his legal advisor and by referring some observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.Nos.12764-765/2012. He has not concluded any summary enquiry as per Sec.34 of the Act. As per Sec.36 of the Act, every summary enquiry shall be in public and after giving notice to the parties or their recognized agents. But, in this case, apparently on the face of the record, it can be said that the 1 st Respondent has not conducted any such enquiry as contemplated u/s.34 & 36 of the Act and therefore, the impugned order can be said as against the principles of natural justice. We find substantial force in the contention of the appellants that the impugned order is passed without giving an opportunity of being heard. Moreover, the 1 st Respondent has not stated whether the application filed by the 1 st Appellant herein has been rejected or not. 11. Since, the impugned order is passed against the principles of natural justice, therefore the same deserves to be set aside. In our considered view this matter is required to be remitted back to the 1 st Respondent with a direction to hold a summary enquiry in respect of the claims of both the parties and pass appropriate orders, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. With these observations we have answered the point under consideration accordingly. 12. Point No.2: For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Appeal filed u/s.49(C) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is hereby allowed. The order of the 1 st Respondent dt.06.03.2015, passed in Phada:Viva:4/2014-15 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 1 st Respondent for fresh consideration of the claims of the Appellants and 2 nd Respondent herein, for restoration of the Khatha of the lands in question and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. The matter is remitted back to the 1 st Respondent for fresh consideration of the claims of the Appellants and 2 nd Respondent herein, for restoration of the Khatha of the lands in question and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Office is hereby directed to send the copy of this Judgment to the Respondent No.1, within 30 days, through registered post along with the LCR.” 6. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the sole ground on which the KAT has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law is by coming to the conclusion that sufficient and reasonable opportunity had not been provided in favour of respondents No.2 to 7 before passing the impugned order which was violative of principles of natural justice. It is also pertinent to note that in the entire impugned order passed by the KAT, no opinion has been expressed on merits and demerits of the appeal and the matter has been remitted back to first respondent-Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh by conducting denova proceedings and by conducting necessary enquiry in this regard. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that rights and contentions of the parties, including the petitioner herein have not been adjudicated upon by the KAT in the impugned order which merely set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the KAT would cause any prejudice or hardship to the petitioner, nor would it affect the alleged rights and contentions of the petitioner, so as to warrant interference by this court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition without interfering with the impugned order and by directing the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties and to proceed further in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed, without interfering with the impugned order. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed, without interfering with the impugned order. (ii) The Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of the proceedings afresh in accordance with law, in terms of the impugned order by provisions sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 to 7 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. (iii) All rival contentions and all aspects of the matter between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 7 as well as the impleading applicants are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (iv) In view disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2023 filed by the impleading applicants does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the impleading applicants to prosecute/pursue/initiate such proceedings, in accordance with law. (v) With the consent of both petitioner and respondents No.2 to 7 are directed to appear before the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner on 08.12.2025, without awaiting further notice from the first respondent.