S. R. BANNURMATH, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGING the order dated 26-6-1992 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, tarikere Sub-Division, Tarikere, Chikmagalur District, in no. SC. ST 12/90-91 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) rejecting the application of the petitioner to declare the sale of the land as void and the consequential relief of resumption and restoration under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of transfer of Certain Lands) Act (for short the "ptcl Act"), as well as the order dated 8-6-1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, in Appeal No. PTL 27/98-99 rejecting the appeal only on the ground of delay and laches (Annexure-D to the writ petition), the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition. ( 2 ) THE brief facts, according to the petitioner, are as follows: the petitioner is a resident of Sutha Village, Hosanagara Taluk, shimoga District. He belongs to "dombaru" caste which is recognised as scheduled Caste under the Constitution of India, 1950, as per the relevant scheduled Caste Order. It is the case of the petitioner that the land, Survey No. 16/p of Gopala Village, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere taluk, measuring 2 acres was granted to Veerappa, father of the petitioner, under the Darkasth Rules on and by the order dated 4-10-1962. Though originally an upset price of Rs. 75/- per acre was fixed, on the application made by the grantee the upset price was waived off on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and as such the grant was free of costs. According to the petitioner, though there was a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years, the land came to be sold to one balachandra in the year 1965 and later the said Balachandra sold it in favour of respondent 4 in the year 1972. ( 3 ) AFTER coming into force the PTCL Act, the petitioner moved the assistant Commissioner to take action under Section 4 of the PTCL Act, i. e. , for declaring the sales made in favour of Balachandra and respondent 4 as void as the same are in violation of the Land Grant Rules and for consequential relief of resumption and restoration. By the impugned order the Assistant Commissioner rejected the prayer of the petitioner on two grounds, viz. By the impugned order the Assistant Commissioner rejected the prayer of the petitioner on two grounds, viz. , (1) that the petitioner has failed to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe, since his claim that he belongs to "dombaru" caste is belied by the Certificate produced from the Headmaster where the petitioner had studied indicates that he belongs to "gani Dombidasaru" community which is not a Scheduled caste; and (2) that the grant was not under the scheme made for depressed class but was under the scheme of rehabilitation of displaced persons and as such it does not come within the purview of PTCL Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner after a lapse of 6 years and 8 months with an application for condonation of delay. Though initially the petitioner was represented by a Counsel, as he did not turn up after filing his Vakalath on a number of occasions, the Deputy Commissioner considering the application for condonation of delay held that the long delay in filing the appeal, i. e. , 6 years and 8 months, could not be condoned as no sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, he dismissed the application. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner has challenged these two orders in this petition. ( 4 ) THE main ground of attack of the petitioner against the order of the deputy Commissioner is that in the light of the decision of the Full bench of this Court in the case of K. Munishamappa v State of Karnataka and Others , the Deputy Commissioner could not have decided the case or even the application on merits when the petitioner's Counsel was absent. It is contended that at the most the Deputy Commissioner could have dismissed the appeal for default and could not have rejected the condonation of delay application. Adverting to the order of the Assistant commissioner, it is contended that the Assistant Commissioner has relied upon the certificate said to have been issued by the Headmaster showing the caste of the petitioner as "gani Dombidasaru" (which is admittedly not a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe) instead of relying upon the certificate issued by the Tahsildar showing that the petitioner belongs to "dombaru" community which is a Scheduled Caste. As such, the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner is illegal and based on extraneous consideration. So far as the applicability of the PTCL Act is concerned, it is contended that whatever may be the nature of grant under any scheme, if the grantee belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled tribe and, if there is a non-alienation condition in the said grant and if the same is violated, the provisions of the PTCL Act are straightaway attracted to such case. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents and since the case is to be decided on the question of law as to the applicability of the PTCL Act, the same is disposed off finally with the consent of the Counsel. ( 6 ) SO far as the dismissal of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, no doubt, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of K. Munishamappa, supra, has held that if the petitioner or the appellant in an appeal does not appear on the date fixed for hearing, it is not open to the authorities including the Appellate Authority to decide the case on merit, but it should dismiss the case or the appeal as the case may be for default. There cannot be any dispute about this proposition of law settled by the Full Bench. However, on a perusal of the order of the Deputy commissioner it is seen that he has not decided the appeal on merits. What he has decided is the interlocutory application which goes to the root of the matter, viz. , maintainability of the appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed. As the explanation of the petitioner was unsatisfactory and since the appeal was filed after 6 years and 8 months, using the jurisdiction under Section 5-A the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application itself. No doubt, the consequence is the dismissal of the appeal as barred by time. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, as the Deputy Commissioner has not followed the law laid down by this Court in K. Munishamappa's case, supra, for remand of the case for fresh consideration as at the time of preliminary hearing itself this Court doubted the applicability of the PTCL Act to the case of the present nature, this Court has proceeded to hear the Counsel on that aspect. If the Court is satisfied that the provisions of the PTCL act are applicable, then only the question of setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner or remand of the case would arise. If the ptcl Act is not applicable, no purpose would be served by remanding the case for decision of the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act. ( 7 ) ON a perusal of the aims and objects of the PTCL Act and especially the definition of "granted land" as per Section 3 (l) (b), it is seen that to bring any granted land within the definition the condition precedent is that such land should have been granted to a person belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is to be remembered here itself that under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and various other provisions like the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Land Grant rules, etc. , time and again provisions are made to encourage cultivation and for grant of lands to the persons who do not own land or who belong to either depressed class or who are below the poverty line. In a loose sense, all such granted lands cannot be the land coming within the purview of Section 3 (l) (b) as stated and as is defined, the land must have been granted only to a person who belongs to either Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe. If the grant is for any other reason and even if incidentally such grantee belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled tribe, in my view, the PTCL Act is not attracted. In a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Abdul Haq Shamshuddin Saheb v deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar and Others, considering similar question as to the grant under the Land Revenue act to the Land Grant Rules to a person belonging to and only on that count vis-a-vis the grant or conferment of right under the Land Reforms act, this Court has held that to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act it must be shown that the land was granted to a person belonging to scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe only on that count and not otherwise. This is more so, since like the provisions of the Land Reforms Act any person belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or even higher class can claim grant of occupancy right and, if he shows compliance with the necessary conditions, he is entitled for such conferment of occupancy rights or grant of the land. At that stage, it is not necessary that he should belong to a particular caste or community. As such, reiterating the same principle in my view to bring a land within the definition of "granted land" as per Section 3 (l) (b) of the PTCL Act as well as the applicability and invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act, it is mandatory and necessary to show that the land in question was granted to the petitioner or the claimant/grantee only on the ground that he belongs to depress class or community. ( 8 ) COMING to the fact of the present case, as seen from the records, the lands in Sutha Village were submerged under the Sharavathi Project and the persons like the petitioner were displaced from the village itself. As such, as the petitioner and other villagers of Sutha Village who had lost the source of livelihood, under the scheme of rehabilitation of displaced persons the Government had allotted or granted through the special Officer for Rehabilitation and Irrigation Development in T. B. S. Project, Shimoga, certain lands to the petitioner and 20 other persons of sutha Village only on account of they being displaced persons. It is not in dispute that except the petitioners, all the other 20 persons did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and some of them belong to even higher community. As such, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the grant of the land to the petitioner was only on account of his being and belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of grant in the present case was only because the persons like the petitioner's father and 20 others were the persons whose lands were submerged because of submergence of Sharavathi Project. Thus, in my view, merely because the petitioner incidentally happens to belong to scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it cannot be said that the grant was only on that count. Thus, in my view, merely because the petitioner incidentally happens to belong to scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it cannot be said that the grant was only on that count. Like any other 20 persons who belong to other castes and communities not coming within the Scheduled Caste or the scheduled Tribe have been granted the land and incidentally the petitioner happens to belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Hence, in my view, the provisions of the PTCL Act would not have been invoked by the petitioner praying for annulment of the sale effected as well as resumption and restoration. The Assistant Commissioner, in my view, has rightly analysed this position and held against the petitioner. No doubt, in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner has not gone into this aspect, but has rejected the appeal only on the ground of delay and laches. On reconsideration of the question of law, since I am of the view that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is just and proper, no useful purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. ( 9 ) IN the result, this writ petition fails and the same is rejected. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that, if the sale of the land in question is prohibited under any of the provisions of the Land Revenue Act or land Grant Rules or contrary to the conditions of grant, it is open to the authorities to take appropriate steps in this regard if permissible under any of the provisions of such Acts or the Rules. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .