ORDER : R.DEVDAS, J. At the oral request of the learned counsel for petitioner, the description of respondent No.5 is permitted to be corrected as the Secretary, National Rural Educational Association(R). 2. The petitioners are registered leaseholders in the shop premises put up by the 5 th respondent. in its premises. At the instance of the respondent No.6, the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District has passed the impugned order at Annexure-X dated 07.02.2025, invoking the provisions contained in Section 96, although the provision is not stated in the impugned order. It was contented by the 6 th respondent that the 5 th respondent association has put up the shops in the premises which is admittedly an agricultural land and without obtaining an order of conversion the structures have been put up illegally thereby the Deputy Commissioner was requested to take action in accordance with law. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is clear from the impugned order itself that although the 6 th respondent has clearly stated that the shops have been put up on the premises and the same has been let out to several persons, the shop owners namely the petitioners herein were not made parties to the proceedings. In that view of the matter, learned counsel submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained, since it violates the principles of natural justice. Moreover, it is submitted that sub-section(4) of Section 96 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to consider any request that could be made by the 5 th respondent to compound the illegality if any by paying the prescribed fee. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the impugned order may be set aside while remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction that the petitioners shall be impleaded in the proceedings and they shall be heard before any orders are passed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 5. This Court finds substance in the submission made to the learned counsel for petitioners. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 5. This Court finds substance in the submission made to the learned counsel for petitioners. In the complaint made by the 6 th respondent he has clearly stated that the 5 th respondent has put up constructions, more particularly the shops without obtaining prior permission or an order of conversion and therefore it was incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner to have issued notice to all such persons who are in occupation of the premises, including the petitioners. There being violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed . The impugned order at Annexure-X dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur District is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration after issuance of notice to all concerned including the petitioners herein. Needless to observe that liberty is reserved to respondent No.5 to seek appropriate relief before the Deputy Commissioner having regard to sub-section (4) of Section 96 of the Act. Ordered accordingly.