ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 9-7-2008 passed in Case No. PTCU04/2006. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by the second respondent herein. 2. The brief facts are that the land in question, namely the property bearing Sy. No. 315/12 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas situate at Appugowdanahalli Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District, was granted in favour of Battala Subbaiah. The second respondent herein is the grandson of the said Battala Subbaiah. The property in question, which was granted, was sold by a sale deed dated 15-5-1965. The second respondent herein subsequently filed an application contending that the proV1slOns of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, has been violated and has sought for restoration of the same. It is no doubt true at an earlier instance, restoration application had not been considered and the matter having come to this Court in W.P. No. 9247 of 2004 was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration by order dated 14-12-2005. Subsequently the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order on 9-7-2008. The petitioner, therefore, has called in question the said order, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has held that the sale of the property in question is contrary to the provisions of the Act and has directed restoration of the property. 3. Though several contentions have been urged in this petition, the aspect, which requires to be noticed at the outset is that the grant made in favour of Battala Subbaiah is in respect of two items of property, namely Sy. No. 315/1 measuring 3 acres and Sy. No. 315/12 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas. The second item of the property, namely Sy. No. 315/12 is the subject-matter in this petition. In respect of the property bearing Sy. No. 315/1 measuring 5 acres, the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner had earlier passed the order holding that the provision has been contravened and restoration be made in favour of the second respondent herein. The petitioners herein who had suffered the said order had questioned the same before this Court in W.P. No. 2246 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 4-8-2004 upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners herein who had suffered the said order had questioned the same before this Court in W.P. No. 2246 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 4-8-2004 upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners herein who are petitioners in the said petition had called in question the said order in W A. No. 4006 of 2004. The said writ appeal was disposed of on 16-7-2009. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the said appeal in fact has noticed that the grant was in respect of two items of property and the property which is the subject-matter of this writ petition was also referred to in the course of the order. Having noticed that aspect, the Hon'ble Division Bench proceeded to consider the contention as to whether Battala Subbaiah who was the grantee belonged to Bhovi Community, which falls under the Scheduled Caste category. In this regard the details of the discussion of the Division Bench need not be referred to, but what is to be noticed is that the Hon'ble Division Bench held that late Battala Subbaiah belonged to that community and therefore there is violation of grant since the sale has been made in favour of the petitioner contrary to the provisions of Act. Further with regard to the findings rendered by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, the Hon'ble Division Bench has also held that they were justified in coming to their conclusion after noticing that the sale deed is of the year 1965. 4. When such being the case, in the instant case also the sale deed dated 15-5-1965. Insofar as the grantee belonging to Bhovi Community and there being violation of grant, this Court cannot take a different opinion from what has been taken by the Hon'ble Division B~nch in a different matter, but relating to very same grant in respect of one item of property. Therefore, in my view, the contentions urged in this petition are squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 4006 of 2004. Therefore the contentions raised in this petition will have to be answered against the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.