M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the correctness and the legality of the order made by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure 'g' by which be rejected the application of the petitioner seeking benefit under the provisions of the Kanataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' ). The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the conclusion of the Assistant Commissioner holding that the applicant petitioner is not a person representing Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes would be justified? ( 2 ) TO answer the above question it is better to refer to certain salient features including the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner as well as the original records produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that by an order made by the competent authority on 15-6-957, 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 19/14 of Lakshmisagara village, Sira Taluk, tumkur District, was granted in favour of Hanumanthappa the father of Sannarangaiah the petitioner herein, under the Kamataka Land Grant Rules, subject to certain conditions. One such condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land for a period of 15 years. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the granted land came to be sold in favour of Kanimakka-second respondent by a registered sale deed dated 1-3-1962, Annexure-B. ( 5 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Act, the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner first respondent seeking relief under the provisions of the Act. His case was that his father the original grantee sold the granted land in contravention of the condition of the grant Therefore, the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act would be applied to declare the alienation of granted land as null and void. He therefore, sought for relief to declare the sale of granted land as null and void and to restore the granted land in his favour. ( 6 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the Assistant Commissioner during the course of the enquiry, without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that the original grantee, the father of petitioner was a person representing koramasetty caste, which is not included either in Scheduled Castes or in Scheduled tribes Order. Hence this petition. ( 6 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the Assistant Commissioner during the course of the enquiry, without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that the original grantee, the father of petitioner was a person representing koramasetty caste, which is not included either in Scheduled Castes or in Scheduled tribes Order. Hence this petition. ( 7 ) WITH a view to ascertain the correctness of the averments of the petitioner the original records was called for earlier. Today, Sri Siddagangaiah, learned High court Government Pleader produced the original records. ( 8 ) AT the outset it is seen that by virtue of certificate of caste issued by Tahsildar, Sira Taluk, Annexure 'e' it is seen that Tahsildar being competent authority under the existing law, has certified that Sannarangaiah petitioner herein is a person representing korama community which is brought within the Scheduled Castes under the constitution of India, 1950 (Scheduled Castes Order as declared by President of india ). ( 9 ) THAT apart, the original records produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader, contain a check slip denoting the number of facts certified by Tahsildar. Even in this check slip Tahsildar notified the Assistant Commissioner saying that Sannarangaiah, son of Hanumanthappa ordinarily residing at Lakshmisagara village of Sira Taluk, is a person representing Scheduled Caste (Korama ). ( 10 ) IT is further seen by verification of the Scheduled Castes Order, 1950, Part Imade under the Constitution at Entry 54 that the caste Korama is included in the list of Scheduled Castes. ( 11 ) WITHOUT referring to all these factors and the documentary evidence producedby the petitioner in support of his case, unfortunately, the Assistant Commissioner failed to apply his mind when he passed the impugned order Annexure-G and rejected the application of the petitioner on the sole ground that the caste Koramasetty is included in Sl. No. 40 (1) of the Backward Tribe. ( 12 ) THERE is one more aspect which I have got to notice at this stage. When the petitioner filed an application seeking relief under the Act on 22-5-1990 before the assistant Commissioner, he has declared in his application that he is a person representing Korama caste and not Koramasetty caste. No. 40 (1) of the Backward Tribe. ( 12 ) THERE is one more aspect which I have got to notice at this stage. When the petitioner filed an application seeking relief under the Act on 22-5-1990 before the assistant Commissioner, he has declared in his application that he is a person representing Korama caste and not Koramasetty caste. That being so, what is the material evidence on which the Assistant Commissioner placed reliance to reach a conclusion that the applicant-petitioner belongs to Koramasetty community is not made clear. No such evidence is available in the original records. In other words, the conclusion so reached by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the applicant petitioner is a person representing Koramasetty community is not satisfactory. On the other hand, there is enough satisfactory material evidence to show that the applicant-petitioner is a person representing Korama community which is brought within the Scheduled Castes in the State of Karnataka as afore-stated. ( 13 ) UNDER these circumstances, I have no alternative but to quash the order of the Assistant Commissioner Annexure-G. It is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter stands remitted to the Assistant Commissioner first respondent with a direction to him to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence on merits. In the circumstances the parties to bear their own costs. ( 14 ) SRI Siddagangaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file bis memo of appearance for respondent 1 within two weeks. --- *** --- .