1. This writ petition raises a short but interesting question regarding the maintainability of a revision petition before the Regional Commissioner under Section 27A of the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act": for the sake of brevity).

2. The petitioners have assailed order dated 21/01/2013 in Case No.INA.RP.01/2006-07 (Annexure "F") passed by the third respondent -Regional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore. By that order, the Regional Commissioner has held that the revision filed under Section 27A of the Act, is maintainable. Thus, the bone of contention between the parties in this writ petition is with regard to the maintainability of the revision petitions filed by the first and second respondents herein, before the third Regional Commissioner.

3. The facts germane to the disposal of this writ petition are that the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Division Bangalore, had passed an order of regrant in favour of one Akkayamma in Case No.5A/1959-60 on 28/08/1965 under Section 10 of the Act. That order is stated to be in operation since then. That order has been assailed by first and second respondents in two revision petitions filed by them before the third respondent invoking Section 27A of the Act. In those revision petitions, petitioners' father, late R.K. Govindappa, had entered appearance being the son of the original grantee namely, late Akkayamma and had raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the revision petitions under the provisions of the Act as well as the delay in filing the revision petitions and the locus standi of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file those petitions. The third respondent initially passed an order on maintainability as well as on merits and set aside the order of regrant made in favour of late Akkayamma, on 09/04/2001, vide Annexure "C". That order was challenged in W.P.No.24331/2001 by late R.K. Govindappa. This Court by order dated 31/05/2006 allowed the writ petition and directed the third respondent to initially consider the question of maintainability. The order of the learned Single in W.P.No.1340/2006 connected with W.P.No.1736/2006. The Division Bench by its order dated 21/02/2009 dismissed the writ appeal by confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the third respondent considered the question of maintainability of the revision petitions and passed the impugned order, holding that he had the jurisdiction and was competent to consider the revision petitions on merits. That order is assailed in this writ petition by the petitioners who are the Legal Representatives of R.K. Govindappa.

4. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the third respondent had to consider the issue of maintainability of the revision petitions at the first instance and thereafter, to pass an order on merits. However, the impugned order not only erroneously holds that revision petitions were maintainable but also touches upon the merits of the matter. It was further contended that the third respondent has not considered the aspect of jurisdiction under Section 27A of the Act in its proper perspective. The delay in filing the revision petition and also the locus standi of the first and second respondents to maintain the revision petitions have also not been considered in accordance with law, was the submission. It was contended that the impugned order is illegal and may be quashed.

5. Elaborating the aforesaid submissions, it was stated that Sy.No.145 of Kodihalli village was granted in favour of late Akkayamma, under Section 10 of the Act. That order was passed on 28/05/1965. As against that order, an appeal was maintainable under Section 28 of the Act. Section 28 of the Act was amended by Act No.26/1979 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Amendment Act") w.e.f. 01/05/1979 by deleting the remedy of appeal