ORDER Writ petition is by persons, who had been granted land to an extent of two acres in old Sy. No. 153 (New Sy. No. 208) of Hoodi Village, Bangalore South Taluk, which on grant and proper survey was found' to be available only to an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas in terms of a grant order dated 22-2-1961 and the first sale transaction in respect of this land was in the year 1963 and the subsequent sale by the purchaser before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act') having failed and also being not successful before the Deputy Commissioner in appeal for getting over such orders the present petition. 2. The 1st petitioner claiming to be a legal heir of the grantee, the 2nd petitioner had initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner for action to invalidate the sale transaction. A sale deed executed by the grantee in the year 1963 in favour of one Munishamappa who in turn had sold the same in favour of the 4th respondent in terms of another sale deed of the year 1969, on the premise that the land in question was a land that had been granted to the 2nd petitioner-Munishamappa as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community and with certain terms and conditions in the year 1961; that such land had been transferred in the year 1963 in violation of the terms of the grant i.e., just after a period of two years, whereas even if the land should have been granted on fixing an upset price and collecting the same, condition is that it should not be transferred for a period of 10 years that a transaction of this nature is hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and for consequential action etc. 3. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the 4th respondent, held an enquiry. 3. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the 4th respondent, held an enquiry. The 4th respondent contested the proceedings mainly on the ground that the 1st petitioner in this writ petition had no locus to main an application; that even during the lifetime of the original grantee other persons cannot claim as their legal heirs; that either the grantee or his real heirs have not initiated any proceedings; that the applicant had failed to make good the conditions of the grant for indicating that the transfer was in violation of the same and more over the land in question having been acquired for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short, 'the Board') by the Government, the question of resumption of the land and restoration does not arise and, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected etc. The Assistant Commissioner, who noticed the factual position that the land in question was a granted land and that it was granted, applicant was not the grantee or a legal heir of the grantee, nor any such persons had appeared before him and that the applicant had failed to make good that the land had been granted on fixing an upset price; but found it fit not to record any findings; that both the applicant as well as the respondent admitted that the land in question had been acquired for the benefit of the Board and accordingly rejected the application. 4. The applicant-1st petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and at that time the grantee also joined for pursuing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. 4. The applicant-1st petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and at that time the grantee also joined for pursuing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. In the appeal, while it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Assistant Commissioner had without due application of his mind to the facts and consequences in law had mechanically rejected the application and therefore the order calls for interference and set aside etc., the respondents contend that while the saguvali chit indicated that the land in question had been granted in carkasht rules it did not precisely say as to whether it was free of cost or at an upset price; that it was not a saguvali chit which had been produced or even a certified copy or an attested copy of the saguvali chit etc., and the material available did not also conclusively indicate as to whether the original grantee was a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community, while the Deputy Commissioner noticed such contentions, nevertheless proceeded to pass orders only for the reason that the "Tahsildar has also not furnished original records relating to grant of land in question" and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 5. It is aggrieved by these orders the present writ petition is by both the persons who had moved the application before the Assistant Commissioner as well as the original grantee. 6. 5. It is aggrieved by these orders the present writ petition is by both the persons who had moved the application before the Assistant Commissioner as well as the original grantee. 6. Submission of Sri Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have totally failed to perform their functions that they have virtually abdicated the statutory responsibility under the provisions of the Act; that the authorities even after noticing that the land in question was one which had been granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community and it had been transferred within a period of 2 years from the date of the grant never examined the legal consequences as to whether such transaction was hit by the provisions of the Act; that it was precisely for this purpose that the 4th respondent also did not claim that the land in question was a land which was granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community and there was no dispute that such a land was transferred within two years from the date of the grant; that the authorities have gone off at a tangent by seeking shelter for non-examination of the application on the premise that as the admitted position on behalf of both the parties was that the land was acquired for the benefit of the Board, application was to be rejected and the authorities have shown total lack of awareness to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, particularly, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. The order while calls for being quashed it is necessary that in peculiar-circumstances of this case the matter should be resolved on inferring the necessary legal consequences in law and the writ petition allowed in terms of the prayer. 7. The order while calls for being quashed it is necessary that in peculiar-circumstances of this case the matter should be resolved on inferring the necessary legal consequences in law and the writ petition allowed in terms of the prayer. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as in the present situation the land in question having been acquired for the benefit of the Board, there is no possibility of the land being resumed to the State and restored in favour of the grantee; that in terms of the law laid down by this Court in a situation where the land is not available what can be provided to the grantee is what becomes available as substitute for the land; that on the acquisition of the land in question for the benefit of the Board the person becomes entitled to receive compensation and the authorities should have pronounced upon the validity of the transaction and if the transactions were to be held null and void in law the petitioner would have continued to be the grantee deriving the benefit of such ownership and consequentially being entitled for the compensation awarded for the acquisition of this piece of land and as there is no requirement or possibility of account being taken by the authorities for resumption of possession from the purchaser and restoration to the grantee and the question being only regarding entitlement of compensation; that question can be determined and appropriate directions issued in the very writ petition. 8. Learned Counsel submits that it is not necessary at this point of time to remand the matter to the authorities after setting aside the orders in question but the matter can be concluded before this Court inasmuch as no further examination is required except to notice the legal consequences and to issue consequential directions. 9. 8. Learned Counsel submits that it is not necessary at this point of time to remand the matter to the authorities after setting aside the orders in question but the matter can be concluded before this Court inasmuch as no further examination is required except to notice the legal consequences and to issue consequential directions. 9. Statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent and it is sought to be urged that the land in question having already been acquired by Board, it has lost the characteristic of granted land within the meaning of the Act; that the provisions of the Act" are no more applicable once the land in question has been acquired, particularly to make use of it for a non-agricultural purpose, in the instant case for industrial purpose; that the object of the Act is for not merely invalidating the transactions which have taken place in violation of the terms of the grant but also to resume the possession of such land and to restitute it in favour of the grantee or the legal heir/s of the grantee; that if such possibility cannot be achieved any more, as the possibilities of either taking possession of the land or restitution of the land have been extinguished due to the acquisition, and the land having been put to use by the Board for industrial purpose, there is no requirement of examination of the impugned orders and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. It is alternatively urged on behalf of the fourth respondent that if at all the legality of the impugned orders is to be gone into, it can only be for the question of apportionment of the compensation amount awarded for the acquisition of the land in question; that in such an event, the first petitioner, who had claimed as legal heir of the original grantee, is not entitled for any compensation at all and if at all the second petitioner, who can claim for a share in the compensation and even then, the compensation amount is required to be apportioned only as between the second petitioner and the fourth respondent. 11. 11. While the factual aspects leading to the transactions are, not as much disputed, what is principally urged is that as the land in question had already been acquired by the Board even by the time an application was moved under the provisions of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner do not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter thereafter and the application is rightly rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the appeal is also very correctly dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner and therefore there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is also urged that assuming that there are illegalities in the impugned orders, having regard to the development in the sense the land is acquired for a public purpose etc., no need for examination of the correctness or otherwise of the impugned orders, but if at all the question as to apportionment of the awarded amount may be examined. 12. The fact that the compensation awarded in respect of the land in question is now in deposit before the Civil Court is also not much in dispute; but the question may be as to who can lay claim to this amount and to whom should be paid the amount. 13. Ms. Afsarunissa, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has contended that the question that may survive for consideration if at all is about the apportionment of the compensation amount; that the authorities having rejected the application, it is only the fourth respondent who is entitled to receive the compensation now deposited before the Civil Court; that notwithstanding the fourth respondent has put a claim to share the compensation amount only With the second petitioner, the matter may be remanded or referred to the Civil Court for determining the entitlement of the second petitioner vis-a-vis the fourth respondent. Learned Counsel for the fourth respondent also submits that though the fourth respondent has not disputed about the land being in the nature of a granted land or even the second petitioner being a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community, nevertheless even if this Court finds that the orders of the authorities not sustainable, the matter will have to be remanded to the authorities for recording relevant finding etc. 14. The third respondent-Board has also filed statement of objections. The writ petition is generally opposed. 14. The third respondent-Board has also filed statement of objections. The writ petition is generally opposed. It is indicated that what was acquired by the Board as 1 acre 35 guntas of land in Sy. No. 208 of Hoodi Village, KR. Puram Hobli; that in view of final notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and the publication of the same in the Gazette, the land has now vested with the Government with no encumbrance in terms of Section 28(5) of the said Act; that the owner of such land being entitled to claim compensation and the Board having already deposited the amount in the City Civil Court, Bangalore in LAC No. 128 of 2005, no relief as such against the Board is warranted in the present writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed insofar as the third respondent is concerned; that the compensation amount having been deposited by the Board, so far as the apportionment of the amount is concerned, the Court may issue necessary/appropriate directions. 15. The third respondent is represented by its Counsel Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, who reiterates the version in the statement of objections. 16. First and the second respondents-authorities are represented by Sri Bharamgouda B. Goudar, learned Government Pleader, who submits that the land having already been acquired for a public purpose, the possibility of resumption and restitution of the land being not there, the only issue that survives in this petition is the question of apportionment of the compensation amount. Learned Government Pleader submits that the land being a land which was owned by the Government and which had been granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community for the purpose of cultivation etc., the interest of the grantee is limited and even if the land were to be restituted to the original grantee, it would have been with a further condition that not by way of an absolute grant and the compensation amount representing the entire right in respect of the land, the Government may not have objection for apportioning the amount on such terms as between the grantee and the purchaser in the sense the reminder of the interest which was in favour of the Government and the compensation representing this interest in the land may be awarded in favour of the purchaser. 17. 17. In the light of the pleadings and submissions urged on behalf of the parties, the questions to be considered in this writ petition are: (a) Whether the impugned orders calls for interference? (b) If so, to what extent and whether the matter calls for remand to the £1uthorities or not? (c) Either, the matter can be concluded before this Court, assuming that it calls for interference; and (d) The manner in which the compensation amount is to be apportioned as between the second petitioner and the fourth respondent. 18. Insofar as the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is concerned, the Assistant Commissioner though noticed the factual position, nevertheless, rejected the application only on the premise that both the applicant as well as the fourth respondent admitted that the land in question had been so acquired for the benefit of the Board. Assuming that the land had so been acquired, whether that will automatically result in the original grantee losing his Claim and as to whether the application should be rejected. 19. In the instant case, there is not much dispute that the land in question was a land that had been granted in the year 1961 and the first transfer was in the year 1963. Even in terms of the condition that could have been imposed on such grantee made in favour of persons belonging to scheduled caste during the relevant time, the non-alienation period operates for 10 years if the grant was one on fixing and collecting an upset price and 15 years if it was a free grant. Though the saguvali chit indicated that a sum of Rs. 20/- as charges had been paid, it is not definitely one reflecting an upset price or reduced upset price. This aspect is not of much importance because even if an upset price has been fixed and collected, the non-alienation is for a period of 10 years, whereas the first transfer was within two years from the date of grant, which is in violation of the terms of the grant. This aspect is not of much importance because even if an upset price has been fixed and collected, the non-alienation is for a period of 10 years, whereas the first transfer was within two years from the date of grant, which is in violation of the terms of the grant. If the land granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community and transfer is in violation of the terms of the grant, the provisions of Section 4 of the Act operate and such transfer becomes null and void and not right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or deemed to have been conveyed under such transfer. The effect of the operation of Section 4 of the Act on the transaction of this nature is that the transfer of the year 1963 or the subsequent transfer are all rendered null and void and it is deemed that no interest in such land had been offered or passed to the purchaser. In the present case, Section 4 of the Act brings about this legal consequence. The Assistant Commissioner was required to make a declaration to this effect. The declaration is a formality which the Assistant Commissioner has to perform consequent to the operation of law. It is this part of the duty of the Assistant Commissioner which has not been performed, but rejected the application on an extraneous consideration that the land had been acquired for the Board etc. Even if the land is acquired by the Board, the consequence of Section 4 of the Act follows and if at all the acquisition is to be construed as an acquisition from the grantee. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is therefore clearly unsustainable. 20. In the appeal, the Special Deputy Commissioner at least should have taken note of this legal infirmity and should have passed an appropriate order. Unfortunately, the Deputy Commissioner exhibits greater dereliction of duty than the Assistant Commissioner. Though the Deputy Commissioner as the Appellate Authority had noticed the factual position and also discussed certain legal consequence in the light of the case-laws cited before him, nevertheless records that the Tahsildar has not furnished the original records relating to the grant of land in question and proceeds to pass orders dismissing the appeal, upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 21. 21. If perusing of the original records was material to decide the appeal, it was the bounden duty of the Deputy Commissioner to have summoned and procured the records. It is to be noticed that the Act is a benevolent piece of welfare legislation and enacted to safeguard the interest of the weaker sections of the society whose ignorance and naivety was being taken advantage by the other sections in the society. It is for the protection of their interest the Act has been made. The Assistant Commissioner who initiates the proceedings is also given suo motu power to initiate proceedings even when either the grantee or the legal heir is not known and whenever a transaction which attracts the provisions of the Act is brought to his notice. An appeal against an order of the Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of the Appellate Authority so exercise his Appellate Authority in an appropriate manner for passing an order to correct the illegalities and errors both of facts and law that might have crept in the order of the Assistant Commissioner and it is also equally the responsibility of the Deputy Commissioner to examine such aspects both on facts and law and to pass a corrective order if so warranted. The powers of the Appellate Authority is coextensive with the power of the original authority and if the Assistant Commissioner was required to examine the records and had not examined, the Deputy Commissioner is not only entitled to but mandated to examine such records for recording appropriate findings. A Tahsildar is a much Subordinate Officer to the Deputy Commissioner and obeys the commands of the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner pleading helplessness that the Tahsildar has also not furnished the original records and therefore ordering the dismissal of the appeal is, in my considered opinion, a gross dereliction of duty and an irresponsible act. The Deputy Commissioner has totally failed in performing his appellate function. 22. This Court had occasion to notice several such orders passed by the authorities under the Act, both by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, where such authorities have been acting in a rather arbitrary manner in clear contravention of the statutory provisions and citing lame excuses to support their decisions. The appellate order is clearly one such. Such officers do not deserve entrustment of responsible positions/functions. The appellate order is clearly one such. Such officers do not deserve entrustment of responsible positions/functions. It is ~r the State Government and the Secretary concerned (Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue) to look into such matters and in the present case to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the Appellate Authority (Special Deputy Commissioner) and to take necessary action against the erring officer. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, is directed to hold an enquiry into this aspect and take such necessary follow up action and submit a report to this Court within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 23. The net result of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is that a person to whom certain benefits were extended under the Act was denied the same by the callous and irresponsible approach on the part of the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner. 24. Be that as it may, so far as the legal consequence is concerned, neither of the two orders is sustainable in law. The Assistant Commissioner himself should have allowed the application and should have declared the entitlement of the second petitioner. 25. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act also throws light to some extent and the consequence that should follow, inasmuch as the award or determination in the context of transfer in the sense such award or order which is consequence of the transfer is also equally to be invalidated. It only amounts this legal position operates even if there was an award in favour of the fourth respondent after the land had been acquired. Such action is only consequential inasmuch as even under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act by fiction of law, nothing is deemed to have ever conveyed or passed under the voided transfer. The impugned orders are clearly unsustainable and are set aside. 26. That takes us to the next question as to what course of further action in the matter is required to be performed by the authorities, if the matter needs to be remanded. 27. The records of the Assistant Commissioner, which were secured by the learned Government Pleader, have been perused by all the learned Counsel for the parties and I have also examined the records. 27. The records of the Assistant Commissioner, which were secured by the learned Government Pleader, have been perused by all the learned Counsel for the parties and I have also examined the records. The records indicate that the land in question is a land that had been granted in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste in the year 1961 and the conditions subject to which the grant is made are available and the Rule governing the grant at that time. In fact, while there is no dispute that the grantee was a person belonging to scheduled caste, even the very sale deed recites that the grantee-seller is a person belonging to Adi Karnataka Community. There was no dispute that the land was a granted land. In such circumstance, when by operation of law such transfer is voided under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act and in the present case, there is no requirement of dispossessing the purchaser from the land in question, as the land is not available for such purpose at this point of time and having been acquired for the benefit of the Board, it is only for declaration of the legal consequence if at all the matter has to go back. In fact there is nothing that was required to be done of by the authorities in the instant case, except for noticing the legal position. Sri G. Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently pleaded that it is definitely not necessary to remand the matter only for such purpose, as it is only noticing the legal consequence by operation of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act on the transaction in question. Ms. Afsarunissa, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent also while does not dispute this position contends that the 4th respondent is entitled to spare the compensation amount that is awarded for the acquisition of the land along with the petitioner. 28. In the circumstance, the submission is accepted and it is declared that the transfers of land in question are voided under Section 4 of the Act and as a consequence, the grantee becomes entitled for the compensation amount, as the land is now not available for restitution. 28. In the circumstance, the submission is accepted and it is declared that the transfers of land in question are voided under Section 4 of the Act and as a consequence, the grantee becomes entitled for the compensation amount, as the land is now not available for restitution. It is held that the second petitioner, who alone has pressed for relief in the writ petition and as it is submitted on behalf of the first petitioner, that he is not putting any independent claim, in view of the claim put forward by the second petitioner, the second petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation awarded in lieu of acquisition of the land in question for tl1e Board. 29. Parties having put forth conflicting claims before the Land Acquisition Officer and the question as to who is entitled for the amount being required to be resolved, the matter had also been referred to City Civil Court, Bangalore. Learned Counsel for the third respondent-Board submits that it is now pending before the Civil Court. It is in this context, the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent has submitted that the purchaser is also entitled for apportioning of a share in the compensation amount and the compensation amount should be apportioned as between the fourth respondent-purchaser and the second petitioner-grantee. Learned Counsel for the fourth respondent has urged for issue of necessary direction to the Civil Court on this aspect. 30. The entitlement before the Civil Court to lay claim to any part of the compensation can only be if the person has interest in the land acquired. The interest may be total or limited, until and unless a person has some interest in the land in question, awarding or apportioning any part of the compensation does not arise. The interest which the fourth respondent claims is only under the sale transaction of the year 1969 executed in favour of the fourth respondent by the first purchaser of the land from the grantee. Ultimately that interest is traceable to sale transaction of the year 1963, a sale deed executed by the second petitioner-grantee. The interest which the fourth respondent claims is only under the sale transaction of the year 1969 executed in favour of the fourth respondent by the first purchaser of the land from the grantee. Ultimately that interest is traceable to sale transaction of the year 1963, a sale deed executed by the second petitioner-grantee. If this transaction is voided by operation of provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act and all interest in favour of the fourth respondent is also extinguished in law, there is no entitlement on the part of the fourth respondent to lay claim for any part of the compensation amount. Therefore, submission on behalf of the fourth respondent for issue a direction to the learned Civil Judge before whom the matter is pending for apportionment of the compensation as between the second petitioner and the fourth respondent has to be rejected. 31. However, on noticing the fact that the compensation amount is quite considerable viz., Rs. 22.5 lakhs and taking a cue from the decisions of the Supreme Court wherein in some such cases, the Supreme Court had indicated that a purchaser who is losing the land because of operation of law, may a least be paid the sale consideration in the sense he/she may be refunded the sale consideration, though the land is restituted to the original grantee or his/her legal heir, it was suggested to Sri G. Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners that out of the compensation amount that the second petitioner becomes entitled to receive, a part of it, at least such part representing the sale consideration which the fourth respondent has paid under the sale transaction which was voided and interest on that amount at a reasonable rate may be given or paid to the fourth respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has very graciously responded to the suggestion and submitted that from out of the compensation amount payable to the petitioner, the sale consideration that had been paid by the fourth respondent in respect of the sale transaction under sale deed vide Document No. 2665 of 1968-69 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of said sale transaction till the date of payment will be given to the fourth respondent more by way of a concession than by way of any legal entitlement. The gracious concession made by the petitioners is appreciated and the submission to this effect by Sri G. Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners is placed on record. 32. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner as well as Special Deputy Commissioner vide Annexures-B and D respectively are set aside. It is hereby declared that the transactions of the years 1963 and 1968-69 are voided in view of operation of previsions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. 33. The second petitioner becomes entitled to receive the entire compensation amount that was payable in lieu of acquisition of the land in question, which is now in deposit before the City Civil Court, Bangalore in LAC No. 128 of 2005. However, in view of the concession made on behalf of the petitioners, learned Civil Judge is directed that from out of the amount in deposit before him in the said case, a sum representing the value of the sale transaction indicated in Document No. 2665 of 1968-69 with simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of said transaction till the date of payment be calculated and such amount shall be paid in favour of the fourth respondent. As it is held under this order that it is only the second petitioner who is entitled for the compensation amount and from out of that in view of a concession, the fourth respondent becomes entitled to an amount as indicated above, LAC No. 128 of 2005 be disposed of apportioning the compensation as between only these two persons in the manner indicated above.