ORDER Petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 22-3-2004 in proceedings No. PTCL 68/2001-02, vide Annexure-C passed by the Respondent 1 and the order passed by the Respondent 2-Asslstant Commissioner in No. PTCL 2/96-97, dated 30-6-2000 vide Annexure-B and further sought a declaration to declare that in view of the grant of occupancy under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, after vesting of the lands with the State, the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act') are not applicable to the land in question and the orders of Respondents 1 and 2 are without authority or jurisdiction, have presented this writ petition. 2. Petitioners claiming to be tenants of the land in Sy. No. 113 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of Block No. 1 of Eachagare Village, Mandya Taluk, were cultivating the said land under the landowner one Sri Krishnegowda and they filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy right before the Land Tribunal, Mandya. The said application filed by the petitioners• had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, Mandya, on 28-7-1981. The Land Tribunal registered occupancy rights and also issued the certificate in Form 10 on 31-10-1981. When things stood thus, the 3rd respondent herein filed an application for restoration of the land in his favour on the ground that the land in question has been granted in favour of the father of the 3rd respondent and that alienation was made by the father of the 3rd respondent on 6-4-1964 in favour of Bettammana Manchaiah and in turn the said Bettammana Manchaiah sold the land in favour of Krishnegowda on 5-7-1972, contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. The said application filed by the 3rd respondent came up for consideration before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent after considering the material available on record and after according opportunity to the petitioners and the 3rd respondent aHowed the application filed by the 3rd respondent and directed the concerned authority to restore possession of the suit land in favour of the 3rd respondent on 30th June, 2000, vide Annexure-B in proceedings No. PTCL 2/96-97. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioners have filed an appeal on the file of the 1st respondent numbered as No. PTCL 68/2001-02. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioners have filed an appeal on the file of the 1st respondent numbered as No. PTCL 68/2001-02. The 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner, in turn, after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant provisions of the Act and following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and after giving an opportunity to the petitioners passed the well-considered order confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner-the 2nd respondent by his order dated 22-3-2004. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondents 1 and 2 and seeking further appropriate relief as stated supra, the petitioners have presented the instant writ petition. 3. The only principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the petitioners have taken a specific ground before both the authorities that without impleading the owner of the property one Sri Krishnegowda and one Bettammana Manchaiah, the authorities have considered the application filed by the 3rd respondent and proceeded to pass orders without taking into consideration the fact that the land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioners under the Land Reforms Act, 1961. Whether the land is granted under the Land Reforms Act, 1961 or under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, is not applicable. Therefore, the impugned order passed is one without jurisdiction. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside on these two grounds. 4. After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners at a considerable length of time and after careful evaluation of the orders of respondents 1 and 2, vide Annexures-B and C, it is manifest on the face of the orders passed by both the authorities, that there is no error of law, much less material irregularity committed while considering the request of the 3rd respondent and rejecting the stand taken by the petitioners. It is significant to note here itself that it is not in dispute that the land in question has been a free grant on 9-6-1957 in Sy. No. 113 of Block No.1 measuring 4 acres by the Tahsildar in proceedings No. D.C. DR. It is significant to note here itself that it is not in dispute that the land in question has been a free grant on 9-6-1957 in Sy. No. 113 of Block No.1 measuring 4 acres by the Tahsildar in proceedings No. D.C. DR. 1156-57 and saguvali chit has been issued to the grantee on 14-4-1960, subject to the condition that the grantee should not alienate the said property for a period of 10 years. The said original grantee has sold the land in favour of one Bettammana Manchaiah on 6-4-1964 an extent of 3-20 acres. The said Bettammana Manchaiah in turn has sold the land in favour of one Sri Krishnegowda who is none other than the owner of the petitioners on 5-7-1972. It is the case of the petitioners that they are cultivating the said land as tenants and occupancy rights have been granted by the Land Tribunal. The said specific ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is liable to be rejected at the threshold. 5. One Sri Krishnegowda has purchased the land on 5-7-1972 and the petitioners claim that they are the tenants as on 1-3-1974 cultivating the said land. When Krishnegowda himself has purchased the land before 1-3-1974, the petitioners claiming tenancy may not be justifiable because they have established that they are cultivating the said land prior to 3 years as on 1-3-1974 the agricultural year. But in 'the instant case, Krishnegowda has purchased the said land in the year 1972. Even if the land has been granted under the Land Reforms Act, 1961 to the tenant, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act is applicable. The said matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of O. Dyamappa v. Appanna Bhovi and Others. Even if occupancy right is granted under the Land Reforms Act, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, is applicable. This fact has been rightly considered by the 1st respondent with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court taking into consideration the transactions-1st alienation in the year 1964 and the 2nd alienation in the year 1972. This fact has been rightly considered by the 1st respondent with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court taking into consideration the transactions-1st alienation in the year 1964 and the 2nd alienation in the year 1972. Both the authorities after careful evaluation of the material on record and taking into consideration the nature of grant and the alienation, have recorded concurrent findings of fact after giving valid and specific reasons/findings. Therefore, interference by this Court may not be justifiable in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. I do not find any justification or good grounds to interfere with the '''Tell-considered impugned orders passed by both the authorities. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.