The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate Authority does not have the power to dismiss the appeal on merits for non-appearance of the appellant, as per the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Rules.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 05-10-1989 passed a by the learned single Judge allowing Writ a Petition No. 16201 of 1989 and remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law, solely on the ground that there is no power reserved to the appellate Authority to go into the merits of the appeal for the non-appearance of the appellant on the date of hearing.

( 2 ) THE appellants in this appeal are the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the purchaser and the grantee respectively, of the granted land. It is seen from in the proceedings that the grantee against whom the order is made by the learned single Judge, has not filed any appeal. The Authorities appear to have filed this appeal only with a view to get the legal position stated as to the power of the appellate Authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act'), to dismiss the appeal on merits for the default of the appellant in view of the two divergent decisions of this Court on the point.

( 3 ) THAT, according to respondent-2, she belongs to Scheduled Caste and the land in question was granted to her under order dated March 8, 1965, with a condition that the said land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. However, she sold the same in favour of respondent 1 under a registered sale deed dated Aug. 28, 1967. That, after the Act came into force, she filed an application before the first appellant to declare the transfer of the land in question null and void and for its restoration as per Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated May 2, 1984, granted the application of respondent-2. The first respondent, having been aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal before the second appellant in Case No. SC/ ST 248/84-85. The second appellant, after having admitted the appeal, granted an interim order of stay and issued notice to the grantee. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time and finally adjourned to Oct. 3, 1988, on which day the parties remained absent and hence the case was adjourned for orders on merits. The case was accordingly dismissed on merits by order dated Oct. 27, 1988. Having been aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the first respondent filed a petition in this Court in Writ Petition No. 16201 of 1989, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, contending that the second appellant did not have jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal on merits, for non-appearance of the first respondent (appellant before him) on the date of hearing, amongst other grounds. The learned single Judge quashed the order made by the Deputy Commissioner solely on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction as the Deputy Commissioner has no power to dispose of the appeal on merits for non-appearance of the appellant.

( 4 ) RULE 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Rules, 1985 (for short 'the Rules') provides procedure for hearing and disposal of the appeal by the appellate Authority under the Act. Rule 5 reads as under:"5. Manner of disposal of appeal by the Deputy Commissioner: (1) The Deputy Commissioner shall issue a notice to the parties informing them that the appeal shall be heard on such date and at such time and place as specified therein. (2) If the appellant does not appear on the date fixed for hearing or any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Deputy Commissioner may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. (3) Where the appellant appears and the respondent does not appear on such date as specified in the notice, the appeal may be heard ex parte. (4) The appellant or respondent as the case may be aggrieved by an order passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) may prefer an ap