ORDER H.G. RAMESH, J. (Oral)—The petitioner who is stated to be the grandson of the original grantee by name Maddurappa, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 23.5.2003 (Annexure B), passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting his claim for restoration of the land and the order dated 4.4.2007 (Annexure A), passed by the Appellate Authority namely, the Special Deputy Commissioner confirming the said order. Both the orders were passed under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tillies (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘the Act’ for short). 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned orders and also the certified copy of the Darkast Register relating to the grant made to the aforesaid Maddurappa which is produced as Annexure C along with the application in Misc. W. No. 5358/2010; this application was ordered to be considered at the time of final hearing as per the order of this Court dated 21.7.2010. 3. The land measuring 2 acres in survey No. 64/3 was granted in the year 1.945 in favour of one Maddurappa who was the grandfather of the petitioner. After the said grant, it. is stated that Maddurappa’s two sons sold 30 guantas out of the said 2 acres in favour of respondent No. 2-L. Thimmaiah, as per the sale deed dated 30.10.1974. 4. The petitioner sought for restoration, of the aforesaid 30 guntas of land under the provisions of the Act Both the original and the Appellate Authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that it was a ‘granted land’. 5. In my opinion, the approach made by both the authorities is erroneous in law, It is for the Assistant Commissioner to examine as to whether the land measuring 30 guntas admittedly sold by the original grantee’s legal representatives to respondent No. 2-L. Thinimaiah is a “granted land” as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act The certified copy of the Darkast register referred to above would show that an extent of 2 acres of land was granted in favour of Maddhurappa. free of cost. Both the authorities under the Act have not recorded any finding as to whether the land purchased by respondent No. 2 is a ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(l}(b) of the Act or not. free of cost. Both the authorities under the Act have not recorded any finding as to whether the land purchased by respondent No. 2 is a ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(l}(b) of the Act or not. In my opinion, in any proceeding for resumption under the Act it is for the authorities to examine and record a finding as to whether the land is a ‘granted land’ or not. The authorities have not looked into the land grant records. The certified copy of the Darkast register referred to above would prima facie show that Maddurappa was granted 2 acres of land free of cost. In the absence of any finding by the authorities that the land purchased by L. Thimmaiah is not a ‘granted land’ rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not justified. In my opinion, the matter requires to be reconsidered in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, I make the following order: The impugned orders at Annexures A and B are set-aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 1. Assistant Commissioner, for reconsideration in accordance with law. Both the parties are at. liberty to adduce relevant evidence in. support of their claim. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open. Respondent No. l shall examine the matter independently, without being influenced by the observations made in the course of this order. In view of allowing of the petition, Misc. W. No. 5358/2010 filed for production of certified copy of Dharkast Register also stands disposed of.