ORDER N.K. Patil, J.--This matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner, assailing the legality and validity of the endorsement dated 18.1.2001 bearing No. HOA:CR:87:2001, Annexure 'B', issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District and the letter dated 20th January, 2001 bearing No. STP: CR: 75: 2000-2001 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere, has filed this writ petition. Further, he has sought for a direction directing the Sub-Registrar, Honnali Taluk, Honnali, to register the document presented by the Petitioner in respect of Sy.No. 105 measuring 2 Acres 15 guntas situate in Guddehalli village, Belagutti Hobli, Honnali Taluk. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that the land in question had been mortgaged to the Bank by one Sri A.K. Neelappa, who was the original grantee. On default being committed by A.K. Neelappa, the said land was brought to sale by public auction by the Petitioner-Bank. After conducting the public auction, the Petitioner-Bank sought for permission from the Respondents to get the sale deed registered in favour of the auction purchaser. The competent authorities have refused to give the said permission to the Petitioner-Bank on the ground that there was no scope for alienation under the Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1978 (for short, the 'P.T.C.L. Act'). The further case of the Petitioner is that the provisions of the Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act and the bar against alienation are not applicable to cases where the land has been mortgaged in favour of a Bank and the same is sold by public auction. The restriction on transfer is only referable to a decree or award obtained by a private individual. Section 7 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, makes the position clear as the said section clearly exempts the application of the said Act in respect of the transfer of granted lands in favour of a Bank. This fact has been brought to the notice of the Respondents 1 and 2. Inspite of that, they have not considered the request of the Petitioner and on the contrary, they have issued the endorsement refusing permission. This fact has been brought to the notice of the Respondents 1 and 2. Inspite of that, they have not considered the request of the Petitioner and on the contrary, they have issued the endorsement refusing permission. In view of that, the Petitioner has come before this Court assailing the impugned endorsement and communication issued by the Respondents 1 and 2 respectively. 4. The principal submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that Section 7 of the Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act exempts the application of the said Act in respect of transfer of granted lands in favour of a Bank. Section 7 of the Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, reads as follows: Exemption: Nothing in this Act shall apply to the transfer of granted lands in favour of the Government, the Central Government, a local authority or a Bank either before or after the commencement of this Act. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in B. Shivappa Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR (1990) KAR 1089 , wherein it is held as under: I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. In my opinion, the transfer of the granted land by the original grantee by executing a mortgage deed in favour of the 5th Respondent-Bank is a 'transfer' to which none of provisions of the SC/ST Act, is applicable by virtue of Section 7 of the SC/ST Act. If the transfer of the granted land in favour of the 5th Respondent-Bank is one such transfer as per the definition of 'transfer' occurring in Section 3(3) of the SC/ST Act, it follows that the Legislature with a deliberate intention exempted the application of the SC/ST Act to any transfer of granted lands or lands in favour of the State Government, Central Government, Local Authority or a Bank. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that Section 7 of the Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, clearly exempts the application of the said Act in respect of transfer of granted lands in favour of a Bank. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that Section 7 of the Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, clearly exempts the application of the said Act in respect of transfer of granted lands in favour of a Bank. In the instant case, the Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank and they are entitled to exemption as per Section 7 of the Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, which position is made clear by the decision of this Court in the above referred B. Shivappa's case. Keeping in view the facts of the case and legal and factual position of law, I hold that the impugned endorsement and communication issued by the Respondents 1 and 2, are not at all sustainable. 6. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 18.1.2001 bearing No. HOA: CR: 87: 2001 issued by the 1st Respondent and the letter/communication dated 20.1.2001 bearing No. STP: CR: 75: 2000-01, issued by the 2nd Respondent are hereby set aside. Further, the 1st Respondent herein is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner and issue permission, permitting him to present the document in question before the 4th Respondent for registration keeping in view the law laid down by this Court as stated supra, as expeditiously as possible, not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within 4 weeks from today.