Judgment :- 1. Sri D C Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that while the petitioners had already undertaken to vacate the subject land and hand over possession to the revenue authorities after harvesting the crop and further submits that subsequent to the order dated 11-1-2011, reading as under: In these writ petitions, at the instance of the purchasers of granted land and which transaction is hit by the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short ‘the Act’], what is questioned is the order of the Deputy Commissioner reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner who had rejected the application, on the ground that no records were available in his office or before him, to conclude that the subject land was a land granted in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste/depressed class. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, on noticing contemporaneous record, opined that it is a land to which the provisions of the Act is attracted and therefore reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, allowed the appeal and has directed restoration of the land, after annulling the transaction and resuming the land to the Government and restoration to the legal heirs. 3. It is against such orders, the present writ petition. 4. Sri. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, when the matter had come up for admission, though vehemently urged and as there was no merit in the writ petitions, they were to be dismissed, submitted that at least the petitioners may be given some time to harvest the standing crop, namely, ginger which is due for harvesting in a month or so and as the petitioners have invested large sum of Rs.7 lakhs and will be put to ruination if even before the crop is harvested, they are to be evicted from the subject land. 5. Sri. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have received notice of eviction from the Assistant Commissioner and until and unless the interest of the petitioners are protected at least till they harvests the standing crop, the petitioners will be put to great hardship. 6. 5. Sri. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have received notice of eviction from the Assistant Commissioner and until and unless the interest of the petitioners are protected at least till they harvests the standing crop, the petitioners will be put to great hardship. 6. In this background, the petitioner No.2(d) in the above writ petitions, has filed an affidavit of under taking reading as under: AFFIDAVIT I, A R Vishwanath, S/o Rudre Gowda, Aged about 54 years, resident of at Kyathanakere village, Modihalli Hobli, Begur Taluk, Hassan District, today now at Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I state that, I am the first petitioner in the above writ petition and I know the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing to this affidavit. 2. I state that, the above writ petition is filed before this Hon’ble Court praying to quash the order dated 14.09.2010 vide Annexure-C passed by the first respondent and also sought for such other reliefs from this Hon’ble Court. That this Hon’ble Court on 26.10.2010 after hearing was pleased to direct the Government Advocate to take notice for respondents 1 and 2 and also ordered to issue notice to 3rd respondent etc., Accordingly, the above writ petition is pending for final adjudication. 3. I state that, my father Rudre Gowda purchased the land measuring 2 acres in old Sy. No.22, New Sy. No.43, situated at Kyathanakere Village, Belur Taluk, for a valuable consideration by means of a registered sale deed dated 07.01.1970 from its previous owner one Rangappa. That ever since date of purchase, my father was in possession and enjoyment of the same and in the family partition, the said land has fallen to my share and accordingly I am also in possession and enjoyment of the same, wherein presently ginger crop is grown which is yet to be harvested. 4. I state that, the 3rd respondent claims to be the legal heir of the original grantee filed an application before the second respondent for restoration of the land by declaring the said sale deed dated 7.1.2970 is null and void and contrary to the provisions of the PTCL Act. 4. I state that, the 3rd respondent claims to be the legal heir of the original grantee filed an application before the second respondent for restoration of the land by declaring the said sale deed dated 7.1.2970 is null and void and contrary to the provisions of the PTCL Act. The application filed by the 3rd respondent came to be rejected by the 2nd respondent as per his order dated 28.6.2007 vide Annexure-B. The first respondent allowed the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent holding that the sale transaction of the and in question is null and void with further direction to restore the land in question to the third respondent vide Annexure-C dated 14.09.2010. It is against the same, the present writ petition is filed by me before this Hon’ble Court challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14.09.2010. 5. I state that, by investing huge sums of money and labour, I have grown ginger crop on the land in dispute, which the term of the crop takes 13 months for harvest from the date of sewing, i.e., from February 2010 and the time for harvest will be March, 2011. 6. I state, that in the meanwhile the second respondent has issued a notice to me to take possession of the land in question fixing the date on 7.1.2011 and visited the land. I state that, I am entitled to harvest the standing crop grown on the land in question by me. I undertake to vacate and deliver the possession of the land in question after harvesting the crop within two months. Wherefore, I respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispose of the above writ petition recording the undertaking in the interest of justice and equally.” 7. Petitioners have undertaken to vacate the land after harvesting the crop within two months, It is not necessary to kept waiting for two months. It is open to the petitioners to harvest the crop at the earliest if he is keen to save his as otherwise once the Assistant Commissioner takes possession, even that he may lose. 8. Petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of cost payable to the third respondent, on entering appearance and directed to take fresh emergent notice to the third respondent forthwith. 9. All modes of services permitted including hand summons. 10. 8. Petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of cost payable to the third respondent, on entering appearance and directed to take fresh emergent notice to the third respondent forthwith. 9. All modes of services permitted including hand summons. 10. Registry to indicate that the third respondent will be paid cost of 10,000/- on his appearing or entering appearance through counsel in this proceedings. 11. The second respondent – Assistant Commissioner is hereby directed to refrain form taking coercive action to evict the petitioners from the subject land for a period of two weeks form today. While the writ petitioners had already deposited the cost of Rs.10,000/- before this court, third respondent has not responded and therefore the amount is still lying in this court and it may be directed to be refunded to the petitioners, as at this point of time, petitioners are not pressing for any further relief and if after the harvest of the crop, the petitioners will hand over possession of the subject land to the revenue authorities, these writ petitions become infructuous and therefore the only order requires to be passed is to direct the registry to refund the amount deposited by the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had raised ginger crop in the land, which is a commercial cash crop. 3. For cultivation of such commercial crops, it is known that large quantities of harmful pesticides are utilized to prevent or suppress pest attach and more often than not use of highly toxic pesticides has been causing great harm to agricultural farming community and more so to the agricultural labourers who are employed for working in such activities and though such people do suffer consequential grave injuries, which can, not only affect them in the present generation but their future generations also but they are more often than not left high and dry without any commensurate compensation. 4. This is because of their ignorance, inability to seek proper aid and because of the impossibility to fight or confront the dogmatic/clannish bureaucratic set up, which is the government machinery! 5. The harmful effects of use of potent and highly toxic pesticides such as Endosulfan is rampant, but the authorities concerned are sleeping over the matter. 6. 4. This is because of their ignorance, inability to seek proper aid and because of the impossibility to fight or confront the dogmatic/clannish bureaucratic set up, which is the government machinery! 5. The harmful effects of use of potent and highly toxic pesticides such as Endosulfan is rampant, but the authorities concerned are sleeping over the matter. 6. While it is high time some measures are taken to alleviate the sufferings of the affected farm labourers, I am of the opinion that the present cost deposited by the petitioners in the present proceedings, instead of being directed to be refunded to the petitioners, may be used for setting up of a fund for alleviating the sufferings of such victims due to the use of harmful pesticides like Endosulfan, under the name and style of ‘fund for victims of harmful pesticides such as Endosulfan and other pesticides’ and the amount may be utilized for extending facilities to them both on the legal side as well as on the medical side. 7. While these writ petition are dismissed, the Registrar General of this court is directed to transfer the sum of Rs.10,000/-, deposited by the petitioners in these proceedings to the account of Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee, which committee is in turn directed to ensure to set up a fund as indicated above and to monitor the disbursal of the fund for the welfare of the victims of sue of harmful pesticides in agricultural farming. Further amounts awarded by way of costs in favour of the Committee may also be credited to this fund for being utilized as indicated above. The Secretary to Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee to ensure proper maintenance of the accounts and to take necessary follow up steps in this regard. 8. In all other respects this petition is dismissed as not surviving for any further relief.