Judgment 1. Proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act. 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act) have become a regular subject matter of writ proceedings before the High Court, more so, at the instance of the aggrieved purchasers of lands which had been granted originally in favour of persons belonging to the depressed classes or persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes who are identified and provided special protection and benefits under the enabling provisions of the Constitution and for effectuating it, presidential orders are being issued periodically after the Constitution has come into force i.e., on and after 26.01.1950. 2. 2. It is definitely a matter of utmost heart-burn and leaving a feeling of deprivation to bona fide purchasers of granted lands, who perhaps might have invested their hard earned money and might have even effected lot of improvements over such lands by further investment of their effort and money and may be, having enjoyed the land for a good number of years, in many cases for generations together, while would definitely have a feeling of assurance that such persons are the undisputed owners in enjoyment of the land and a deprivation of such land enjoyed, without any interruption, without any interference and as owners of the land at a much later point of time, as in the present case a granted land of this nature an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.43/2 of Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which the petitioners claim to have purchased in terms of a sale deed dated 20.2.1971 for valuable consideration executed in their favour by one Uttara Ramaiah, being deprived to the petitioners as per the order dated 8.12.2003 (copy produced as Annexure-A to the petition) in proceedings No.KSC.ST.2/1992-93 and even a further appeal to the Deputy Commissioner being not productive for sustaining the land as the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s appeal filed under Section 5A of the Act in terms of his order dated 16.11.2009 passed in No.SC.ST.(A) 70/2003-04 (copy produced as Annexure-B to the petition), the bona fide purchasers aggrieved by these orders, which has happened in respect of a land which had been granted way back in the year 1940 i.e., 1.8.1940 even before we attained independence and with such a land having been transacted for the first time as per the records available in terms of the sale transaction dated 6.6.1957 executed by one Yellappa S/o. Kullappa in favour of one Ramaiah for a sum of Rs.500/-and with the petitioner’s hopes and aspirations to own and enjoy the land having been dashed, no wonder such persons have approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. 3. In proceedings of this nature even the slightest defect or irregularity kindles hopes and aspirations in the hearts of purchasers and no effort will be spared to sustain the sale transaction in the first instance and even if it is not possible, try to prolong the litigation so that possession and enjoyment of the land can be continued as far as possible. 4. While such perseverance on the part of the purchasers by itself cannot be characterized as something obnoxious as it is normal human conduct to sustain or save what one has, unfortunately in this procedure wrangled system with functionaries under the Act being higher revenue officials such as the Asst. Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and not necessarily well versed in the law, as trained judicial officers and judges and many a time the conduct and the manner of functioning of such revenue officials being not necessarily bona fide and more often that not, such officials being not necessarily bona fide and more often that not, such officials being guided by or influenced due to other consideration, the subject matter is a fertile area for prolonged litigation and the victim is the poor hapless claimant, who invokes the provisions of this Act, either by making an application under Section 5 of the Act before the Asst. Commissioner or even when the Asst. Commissioner suo motu initiates proceedings against present possessors of granted land for taking action, warranted under the provisions of the Act and when proceedings once initiated prolongs unendingly and a legal heir of the original grantee, who perhaps might have been ignorant, who perhaps might have not even desired to get or re-possess the land when once notice is issued and with the hopes and aspirations being kindled in his heart seeks to defend his possession, prolonged litigation can only be a misery to such persons and it in fact, is so. 5. In the present case, an application given by the father of respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 by name Chikkamuniyappa, who is not so correctly described, as the 3rd respondent in the petition though is no more, and proceedings initiated by the said Chikkamuniyappa in the year 1990 has taken not less than two decades to see its culmination before the Asst. Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and has reached this Court in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India presented on 9.09.2010 to question the legality of the orders passed by the Asst. Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner with the following prayer:- “a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and quash the order dated 8.12.2003 passed by the first respondent in case No.KSC.ST.2/92-93 on the file of the first respondent at Annexure-A and b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and quash the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the second respondent in case No.SC.ST (A)/70/2003-04 on the file of the second respondent at Annexure-B. 6. Writ petitioner being an Ex-service man, who has rendered meritorious service as he had retired as a Major General from the army and who it is claimed was part of the Blue Star Operation conducted by the Indian Army in the year 1983 and who has also been recognized for his courage and bravery by conferring “Athivisista Seva Medal” recognizing such service can only feel really aggrieved and may even feel the system letting him down, when he had purchased with utmost bona fide an extent of 2 acres of land. Unfortunately a granted land which had its origin in a grant order as a result of darkhast proceedings to grant lands in favour of persons belonging to depressed classes as per proceedings 28.08.1940 followed by issue of a saguvali chit and with contemporaneous revenue records indicating that it was either initially a temporary lease for a period of one year or even assuming that in respect of other grants under the very proceedings of the District Commissioner dated 1.8.1940 passed in No.B2.DAR.184/1939-40 and following which an extent of 2 acres of land had been granted in favour of Yellappa bin Muniyappa fixing the revenue temporarily at Rs.3/- for the year 1940-41 and as a person belonging to depressed class, what matters is the nature of grant and in favour of Yellappa Bin Muniya, belonging to depressed class and therefore, the corresponding conditions statutorily imposed under rules formulated under section 233 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Code, 1888, regulating grants made in favour of persons belonging to depressed classes and sub-rule (8) of Rule 43 of the Code specifically imposing a statutory condition on all such grants made in favour of depressed class that the granted land cannot be alienated for good, always operate. 6. Such being the inference drawn by the Assistant Commissioner as per order dated 8.12.2003 [copy at Annexure-A] and the affirming order of the Special Deputy Commissioner as per order dated 16.11.2009 [copy at Annexure-B], no wonder the revenue authorities were bound to invalidate the sale transactions under which the petitioners put forth their claim for right, title and interest in the subject land and being aggrieved by the orders, is before this court in this writ petition. 7. Sri. B N Jayadeva, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to urge several grounds to demonstrate either the invalidity or the inconsistency of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. It is firstly contended that the applicants had miserably failed to place before the court any material much less the grant order which had shown conditions of grant for inferring that the sale transactions of the year 1957 was one in violation of the terms of the grant. 8. It is firstly contended that the applicants had miserably failed to place before the court any material much less the grant order which had shown conditions of grant for inferring that the sale transactions of the year 1957 was one in violation of the terms of the grant. 8. It is submitted that the Assistant Commissioner in the first instance, and the Deputy Commissioner in appeal, could not have passed orders at Annexures-A & B respectively in the absence of grant orders or any record relating to the grant proceedings and which is the admitted position as such records are either not traceable or available etc… 9. Mr. Jayadeva, learned counsel for the petitioners would also point out that the record on which reliance is placed by the authorities are while not grant proceedings and being in the nature of index of land and record of rights and that too with good number of correctness and interpolations etc., was not a record worthy of any reliance for depriving the petitioners of an extent of 2 acres of land which they had purchased for valuable consideration and therefore the orders passed by the authorities is more based on surmises and conjunctures rather than any dependable or tenable material on record. 10. Mr. Jayadeva, learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the applicants before the Assistant Commissioner by name Chikkamuniyappa while is a person claiming under one Yellappa son of Kullappa, subject grant was one in favour of Yellappa son of Muniya and therefore the authorities under the Act have committed an error in examining such an application at the instance of said Chikkamuniyappa in the first instance and now by his legal heirs, even when they are not legal heirs of the grantee. Assuming that the land purchased by the petitioners is a granted land and one which had been granted way back in the year 1940 in favour of Yellappa son of Muniya. 11. One more ground urged by Mr. Assuming that the land purchased by the petitioners is a granted land and one which had been granted way back in the year 1940 in favour of Yellappa son of Muniya. 11. One more ground urged by Mr. Jayadeva, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the applicant and his legal heirs are not bona fide persons, but have already entered into transaction with third parties to transfer the subject land even if they should get under the present proceedings and that some attempt had been made to take possession of the land even earlier during the pendency of the appeal of the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner and because of which the petitioners were constrained to approach this court by filing writ petition 3253 of 2004 and being remanded as per order dated 18.2.2005 passed by this court to ensure that the possession of the petitioners in the subject land was not disturbed during the pendency of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. 12. It is also submitted that taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner was required to stay back within the high security zone and was staying in Delhi because of certain threat perceptions to his life by some persons, miscreants had demolished the compound wall which the petitioners had put up and such high handed action also gravely affected the interest of the petitioners. 13. The arguments so addressed at the Bar are also sought to be supported by not only a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘B K MUNIRAJU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS’ reported in 2008 (3) KCCR 1289, as to the manner in which a particular land can be verified or ascertained to be a granted land but also a single Bench decision of this court in the case of ‘NAGENDRAPPA AND ANOTHER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE AND OTHERS’ reported in 2002 (4) KLJ 122, indicating that in the absence of the original grant records, the authorities are required to look into the contemporaneous document like the register maintained for this purpose and what is known as land grant register. 14. Based on such decisions, submission of Sri. 14. Based on such decisions, submission of Sri. Jayadeva, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the kind of scrutiny or examination conducted by the authorities falls short of the norms or stipulations indicated for the ascertainment of the land to be granted land in terms of this Judgment and therefore the orders are not tenable. 15. Mr. R. Omkumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2, who has been favoured with advance copy of the writ petition, has drawn my attention to the rules regulating the grant in favour of the depressed class in the year 1940 in terms of the Notification No.R5682-LR 389-37.3 dated 27.6.1938 and has submitted that though the authorities did not have extract or copy of the grant proceedings or saguvali chit issued and even when the register referred to was not a register indicating the details of lands granted under Darkhast proceedings etc., the material relied upon by the authorities being contemporaneous and record at any rate which had come into existence much before the enactment of the present law itself, whatever light it has thrown and being bona fide record maintained by the revenue authorities and to that extent having evidentiary value in the absence of any material placed by the petitioner to discharge the burden in terms of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act and therefore there is absolutely no occasion to over look the evidence and if the authorities have passed the orders for achieving the purpose of the Act, there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders. 16. Mr. R. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondents 1 & 2 also submitted that Judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the present case and are distinguishable. 17. The validity of the enactment had been examined by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MANCHE GOWDA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS’ reported in AIR 1984 SC 1151 and it has been upheld. Now the duty of the courts including the superior courts is only to examine as to whether the authorities under the Act have been functioning in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Now the duty of the courts including the superior courts is only to examine as to whether the authorities under the Act have been functioning in conformity with the provisions of the Act. A proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not an appeal proceedings and has limited scope for examining the validity of the orders passed by the authorities on the touchstone of correctness or otherwise of facts. 18. Whether the land is a granted land or not is a finding of fact. The authorities have relied upon some material contemporaneous however insignificant learned counsel for the petitioners or the petitioners may think the same is to arrive at a conclusion and in my considered opinion, have drawn the right inference from the available material on record. 19. As observed in the earlier part, the present proceedings have resulted more in harassment to respondents 4, 5 and 6 than one conferring any benefit on them. The argument that the present respondents 4, 5 and 6 are not legal heirs of the original grantee cannot in any way invalidate the orders for resumption of the land as there is material to indicate that the subject land was a granted land and the character attached to the land and it does not matter as to who has made the application for initiating the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. In fact, the Assistant Commissioner has suo motu jurisdiction and the duty is to examine the documents of lands in possession of non-scheduled caste scheduled tribe persons, the land which had been originally granted in favour of persons belonging to depressed classes or after the Constitution coming into force to persons belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. With such finding having been recorded that it was one such land, the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act operate to the hilt. 20. In fact, it is the responsibility of the purchaser if he is so keen and interested in sustaining the transaction to prove that the subject land was not a granted land as otherwise the presumption arises in law against the purchaser and by fiction of law all sale transactions being voided. 21. In the present case, there is absolutely no effort on the part of the petitioners – purchasers to demonstrate that the subject land was not a granted land. 21. In the present case, there is absolutely no effort on the part of the petitioners – purchasers to demonstrate that the subject land was not a granted land. Though an argument is sought to be feebly addressed at the Bar that the very extract of the index of land and record of rights register indicates some other person had been granted an extent of 9 acres as per the darkhast auction etc., that is not of much significance as what the authorities were concerned was only in respect of 2 acres of land which was subject matter and which even as per the records had been originally granted in favour of Yellappa son of Muniya under darkhast proceedings for grant of land in favour of depressed classes and in which event it is a granted land the provisions of the Act are attracted and presumption in terms of sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act arise against the petitioners who are now in possession and therefore with the petitioners not having discharged the burden placed on them to disprove that the land was not a granted land, had resumed so and these orders cannot be found fault with, by this court. 22. It is for this reason, this court does not deem it proper or necessary to issue notice to the respondents to defend the orders passed by the authorities as that will be only to further their agony and harassment. As to whether the respondents 4, 5 and 6 are persons to whom such land after resumption should be restored is a matter which will be subject matter of further enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner and is not a relevant issue to be examined at the present point of time. 23. Unfortunately, such matters occupy time and space of this court though the outcome is inevitable and the law is fully loaded against the purchasers. 23. Unfortunately, such matters occupy time and space of this court though the outcome is inevitable and the law is fully loaded against the purchasers. As observed in the earlier part of this order, human tendency is to sustain what one has but when it becomes at the cost of court’s time, particularly, in writ jurisdiction, such matters deserve imposition of commensurate costs, but in the instant case, I am not inclined to impose any costs having regard to the background of the writ petitioners who had rendered yeoman services for the Nation whose bona fides cannot be doubted and therefore this writ petition is dismissed without imposing any costs.