JUDGMENT : V. Gopala Gowda, J. The Correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-1-2009 passed in W.P. No. 2506 of 2006 (SC-ST) (Thippanaika v Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga), after quashing Annexures-C and D, dated 24-11-2005, and 26-11-2005 resuming and restoring the land in favour of the appellant herein, challenged this appeal urging certain grounds 2. The ground of attack of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is that the sale was declared to be null and void. The effect of quashing of the order passed by the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent is amounts to declaring the alienation made by the original grantee in favour of the 3rd respondent dated 1-4-1961 is within the stipulated period. Therefore, the learned Single Judge should have asked the 2nd respondent to resume and restore the land in favour of the appellant herein. As the 2nd respondent in law is required to resume and restore the land is the statutory effect of the cancellation of the sale made in favour of the husband of the 3rd respondent. Not granting this relief by the learned Single Judge after quashing the order impugned in the writ petition will not enure to the benefit of the said order to the grantee. The object and intendment of the Act is to see that alienation as made by the grantees within the non-alienation period, violation of the terms and conditions of the grant, therefore Section 4 (1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter called as the ‘PTCL Act’) 3. The object of the PTCL, Act to see that alienation of the granted land in violation of the terms and conditions of the grant and provisions of the Act are declared to be void, such lands should be resumed and restored in favour of the grantees, who belonged to the weaker sections of the society, as they must be facilitated to get the lands restored by the 2nd respondent with a view to see that they should have the occupation of cultivating the land and earn for themselves and their family members for their livelihood is the constitutional mandate as enshrined in the directive principles of the State policy. The validity of the PTCL Act is upheld by the Apex Court in the case of Manchegowda and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others 1984(2) Kar. L.J. 1 (SC): AIR 1984 SC 1151 : (1984)3 SCC 301 . Once the learned Single Judge opined that the order passed by the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent are in contravention of the terms and conditions of the grant and provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, the benefit of the provisions of the Act should have been extended to the appellant under Section 5 by passing an order of resumption from the purchaser or his legal heirs and restore the same in favour of the grantee or his legal heirs is the object. That object of the PTCL Act should have been fulfilled by granting relief. In not doing so, even though he has quashed the orders impugned in the writ petition, the order of the learned Single Judge is vitiated in law. Therefore, the appellant must succeed. 4. Accordingly, we pass the following order. We direct the 2nd respondent to resume and restore. The land in question in favour of the appellant in exercise of his power under Section 5(2) of the PTCL Act and restore the same in favour of the appellant herein. The above said direction is given to the 2nd respondent as the learned Single Judge quashed the orders passed by the original authority and the Appellate Authority and we are accepting the same and further declaring alienation made by the grantee in favour of the husband of the 3rd respondent is null and void. This order shall be complied with by the 2nd respondent within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.