Judgment :- 1. There was a time when legal profession was practiced in proper, efficient committed manner. It is only because of this nature of practice of the profession, the profession earned the name that it is a noble profession. 2. Whether it is still being practiced in the same manner, whether it can still command the reputation of being a noble profession are all matters highly doubtful because of the present developments not only in the society, but also in the legal system. While all systems may comprise quality people, good professionals perhaps there may be more number of persons, who are to the contrary! 3. Ultimately it is the number of quality people who matter more and it is their ability and a sense of commitment that sustains any profession. 4. Litigation has proliferated over a period of time and in this country, though there was a traditional conventional dispute resolution system before the advent of the foreign powers and their rule on and after our country was annexed by the Britishers, who for the first time brought the entire country under a common code and more for protecting their interests and to perpetuate their rule in our country, imposed their own methods and legal system on the people in our country and while there may be many beneficial systems which had been brought about by the Britishers, not all systems and procedure introduced by them have proved to be for the benefit of our Society, particularly, as the main object of the foreign rule was to protect their own interests and to perpetuate their authoritarian rule on the people in this country and therefore. It is not necessary that all systems imposed by the Britishers augured well for our people. The English Legal System is one of the legacies of the foreign rule and though there were other disputes resolution systems in our country which one can infer on an examination of the legal history in this country the adversary English Legal System which was more or less uniformly imposed in this country except for the princely states has been continued even after independence and is the legal system that prevails throughout the country as of now. 5. 5. Our country becoming a republic and with our own Constitution on and after 1950 has not made much difference to this position and the adversary English Legal System rules roost! 6. While there may be some beneficial aspects from such a legal system, we have been left in a state of confusion in further developing our own legal system particularly, after the country became a republic and the result of this confusion is the hybrid legal system which is neither here nor there and more often than not has resulted as an obstacle in developing and improving our legal system to suit the needs of our people our society! The English Legal System being essentially an adversary Legal System the principles and practices in this system is employed even while examining matters under the constitutional jurisdiction. 7. Unfortunately not much thought has been bestowed to the aspect as to whether the adversary English Legal System should be continued as such and should be the basis for examining matters brought before the superior courts in this country under the constitutional jurisdiction. 8. In consonance with the object and the goal of our constitution, legislature has ushered in, many social welfare legislatures such as the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PTCL Act’) meant for protecting the interests of people belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities particularly, to save the government lands granted to such socially and economically deprived class of persons for bestowing on them a source of livelihood to make them independent economically and thereby improve their social status by carrying on agricultural avocation with which they are conversant, so that they do not revert to their earlier statuts of penury and its adverse consequences. 9. Though the erstwhile State of Mysore was a Princely State, even the rulers of this State had recognized the social stigma that was attached to some sections in the society and had provided and had taken beneficial measures to alleviate their sufferings, miseries, backwardness socially and economically. 9. Though the erstwhile State of Mysore was a Princely State, even the rulers of this State had recognized the social stigma that was attached to some sections in the society and had provided and had taken beneficial measures to alleviate their sufferings, miseries, backwardness socially and economically. The phrase ‘scheduled caste’ and ‘scheduled tribes’ while are found in the provisions of the Constitution of India, it is not as though the concept was invented for the first time, but they were all identified as such class or community because of the social backwardness of such persons and even before the advent of the Indian Constitution particularly, in the erstwhile State of Mysore, such persons were recognized as depressed classes and beneficial steps had been taken by the reformist rulers of the state for grant of lands in favour of such persons belonging to depressed classes or cultivation and for such persons to earn a living by such agricultural operations. 10. Grant of such lands, was being regulated by the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, and it provided for grant of lands in favour of persons belonging to the depressed class even after independence and even after the advent of constitutional provisions such laws would prevail in the areas where they were in vogue. The Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, provided for free grant of lands in favour of depressed class persons and was intended to ensure that they earn a living and are not made victims being wooed or dragged into deals which would deprive them of such lands by greedy and ambitious land holders. While granting government lands to such persons a condition was being imposed that such granted lands should not be alienated for ever by the grantee and such a condition is found in Rule 43(8) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) in terms of Rule 233 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888. In terms of Mysore Notification No.R.482-L.R.450-373 dated 29-7-1938 a transfer in violation of this condition to the detriment of such grantee or his legal heir would result in resumption of the land in favour of the State on and after the enactment of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978. In terms of Mysore Notification No.R.482-L.R.450-373 dated 29-7-1938 a transfer in violation of this condition to the detriment of such grantee or his legal heir would result in resumption of the land in favour of the State on and after the enactment of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978. Stringent provisions have been made in order to take positive action in respect of the lands which had been granted in favour of such persons, if they are parted with or transferred in violation of the conditions of the grant and for being resumed in favour of the State and for being restituted to the original grantee or their legal heirs. 11. Such as the legal position as of now and the provisions of this Act is sought to be implemented and becomes applicable in respect of such lands which had been transferred, before the Act came into force, in violation of the terms of the grant and on and after the Act has come into force w.e.f. 1.1.1979, if it is either transferred by such violation or is transferred without obtaining prior permission from the State Government, irrespective of the conditions imposed. 12. The PTCL, Act has come into force w.e.f. 1.1.1979 and the constitutional validity of this law had been challenged by the purchasers and the Supreme Court of India had occasion to examine the correctness or otherwise of the judgment of this court upholding the validity of this enactment in civil appeals before it and has opined on it in terms of the judgment rendered in MANCHEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in AIR 1984 SC 1151 affirming the judgment of the High Court upholding the validity of this enactment. 13. In the State of Karnataka, sale and purchase of agricultural lands have been more severely restricted and the regulations are quite stringent in terms of the provisions of section 79-A the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. A non-agriculturist cannot acquire agricultural land and even if a non-agriculturist acquires an agricultural land it will be automatically voided by law and will have to be resumed in favour of the State by proceedings taken by the authorities under the provisions of Section 83 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, which is the legal position on and after 01.03-1974! A non-agriculturist cannot acquire agricultural land and even if a non-agriculturist acquires an agricultural land it will be automatically voided by law and will have to be resumed in favour of the State by proceedings taken by the authorities under the provisions of Section 83 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, which is the legal position on and after 01.03-1974! In this state of affairs, persons acquiring or aspiring to acquire agricultural lands should be doubly cautious, should keep their eyes open and elicit proper legal advise as they are investing perhaps huge amounts, earned by their hard work and efforts. But if they embark on meaningless, speculative purchases as it happens to any other imprudent persons before entering into any transaction in respect of immovable properties, they will have to bear the brunt of section 4 of the Act. 14. Normally the purchasers seek legal advice and the number of lawyers available in the legal profession is proliferating with time and there is no dearth of lawyers and even good lawyers, but it is only a bona fide purchaser who will acquire the land. Should one purchase a land purely for speculative reasons, with the sole aim of making a quick buck, then such person should be made to bear the whole brunt of the Act. The petitioner embarked upon purchasing a land in the year 1996 which it appears had been originally granted in favour of a person belonging to depressed class one byname A.D. Narashima and who had been granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.156/55 New No.326 situate at Hulimangala Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The land had been granted by the Government of Mysore in favour of the said A.D. Narashima for his personal cultivation. 15. Such grants are clearly made in what is known as darkasth proceedings in favour of depressed classes whereunder good number of government lands have been granted exclusively in favour of persons belonging to depressed classes. In the present case, the said A.D. Narasimha having been granted 2 acres of land he sold it in the year 1958 in favour of one Ele Nagappa for some consideration. 16. The material question for examination on the PTCL Act coming into force, is as to whether this transaction could be sustained. In the present case, the said A.D. Narasimha having been granted 2 acres of land he sold it in the year 1958 in favour of one Ele Nagappa for some consideration. 16. The material question for examination on the PTCL Act coming into force, is as to whether this transaction could be sustained. If so, whether the said Ele Nagappa had acquired good or valid right, title and interest who in turn could convey it to the subsequent purchaser and so on and so forth. 17. It is in such series of transactions the writ petitioner claims interest, being purchaser in the year 1996 of the same extent of 2 acres of land. Respondent No.3 – Smt.Muniyamma, who claims that she is the legal heir of the original grantee – A.D. Narasimha, who had petitioned the Asst. Commissioner, Bangalore South, invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act particularly, under Section 5 of the PTCL. Act for invalidating all transactions on and after 1958 right up to the sale in favour of the petitioner to resume the land in favour of the State and to restitute it to the original grantee/legal heir of the original grantee as she claims she is the legal heir of the original grantee as she claims she is the legal heir of the original grantee and is entitled for the same. 18. The Asst. Commissioner held an enquiry, issued notice to the writ petitioner who claimed to be in possession and the writ petitioner had availed services of an advocate to represent his case and the clause. 19. However, submission of Sri. Onkarappa, learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition before this Court is that the advocate who had been engaged by the writ petitioner did not appear at all before the Asst. Commissioner and it is not known as to why the advocate did not appear and for what reasons. But there was no version placed before the Asst. Commissioner on behalf of the writ petitioner. 20. Nevertheless the Asst. Commissioner and it is not known as to why the advocate did not appear and for what reasons. But there was no version placed before the Asst. Commissioner on behalf of the writ petitioner. 20. Nevertheless the Asst. Commissioner based on certain material placed by the applicant Smt. Muniyamma, before him in the form of a Tippani copy of the land revenue record, encumbrance certificate and copy of the sale deeds and on looking into such documents was of the definite opinion that the land in question i.e., 2 acres of land in Sy.No.156/55 was a land which had been granted in favour of A.D. Narasimha as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner under the DD Rules No.26/47-48 and Phodi-Durashti was conducted as per Phode No.44/53-54 and new survey number 326 was assigned to the phoded portion of the land as per the existing land revenue code. It was granted free of cost and carried with it a condition of permanent non-alienation as is referred to above in Rule 43(8) of the Rules. 21. The Asst. Commissioner noticed the series of transactions in respect of the purchase made by the writ petitioner and being of the view that the first purchase being within a period of 30 years from the date of grant, having not lapsed since the transfer of the land by the grantee in favour of the fist purchaser and the sale being in violation of the condition of the permanent non-alienation, by his order dated 30.10.2006 (copy produced as Annexure-B to the petition) held that the provisions of the Act operate and voided the sale transaction, directed resumption of the land in favour of the State and to restitute it in favour of the grantee or the legal heir of the original grantee etc. 22. Aggrieved petitioner preferred appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act. 23. The Special Deputy Commissioner as per his order dated 12.10.2009 (Copy produced as Annexure D to the petition) in No.SC.ST.(A) 107/2006-07 found no occasion to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as the Deputy Commissioner was convinced that the land was a granted land as per the records and other documents, perused the order of the Asst. The Special Deputy Commissioner as per his order dated 12.10.2009 (Copy produced as Annexure D to the petition) in No.SC.ST.(A) 107/2006-07 found no occasion to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as the Deputy Commissioner was convinced that the land was a granted land as per the records and other documents, perused the order of the Asst. Commissioner and being of the opinion, the mere non-production of the original grant order could not make any difference as the available contemporaneous records indicate that the subject land was granted land in favour of a person belonging in scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and therefore was saddled with the condition of non-alienation and having been transferred as per the sale transaction dated 27.9.1958 it was found that the subsequent purchaser did not get any right, title and interest and therefore, confirmed the order of the Asst. Commissioner. It is as against such concurrent failures by the purchaser of the year 1996, the present writ petition is presented. 24. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, submission of Sri. Onkarappa, learned counsel, is manifold. It is firstly urged that sufficient opportunity had not been given to the writ petitioner by both authorities to putforth his case and secondly urged that the applicant had never made good that the land in question was a granted land and in the absence of the grant order being produced no condition which had been made could be inferred; that even in the absence of the grant order or relief of the grant, the authorities have by just on surmises and conjunctures inferred that there is violation of the condition of grant when the grant is of the year 1958 and therefore, the order of the Asst. Commissioner is not sustainable. 25. In this regard learned counsel has placed considerable reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nagendrappa and Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere and Others reported in ILR 2002 KAR 2670 to submit that until and unless the revenue authorities indicate that there was a grant order and grant certificate issued, that it adumbrated certain condition and in fact there was violation of the condition, there was no occasion for the revenue authorities to become active for taking adverse action against a purchaser of the land. It is also submitted that even when the Asst. It is also submitted that even when the Asst. Commissioner noticed that the transfer of the subject land is not preceded by any prior permission from the Government and therefore, it should be voided, he has applied the wrong provision of law and has failed to appreciate that a transfer without prior permission becoming voided in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the PTCL, Act and this provision operates only prospectively and not retrospectively. There was no condition of non-alienation for a grant made in the year 1958 when the original grantee transferred the land and even when there was no condition of permanent non-alienation, voiding the sale transaction of the year 1958, an error in law is committed by the Asst. Commissioner and blindly confirmed in appeal and therefore, both the orders are required to be set aside and if at all the matter is remanded for a proper enquiry and fresh orders. It is also submitted, placing reliance on the so called Tippani that there was no proper cross-examination in an enquiry that was conducted by the Asst. Commissioner under Section 5 of the Act and a Tippani copy does not indicate either a grant order/condition of a grant and in fact no condition is imposed in the Tippani and therefore, it has to be inevitably inferred that the Asst. Commissioner and Special Deputy Commissioner have acted on surmises and conjunctures and not on any relevant material and such action has been inevitably found fault with, by this Court in a number of petitions and therefore, the result cannot be any different in the present situation also. The matter has come up for further orders in the wake of a earlier order passed by this Court on 23.5.2011 reading as under:- “DVSKJ:/23.5.2011 WP No.10701 of 2010 Neither the petitioner nor Mr. ND. Onkarappa, learned counsel for the petitioner is present before the court. The matter has come up for further orders in the wake of a earlier order passed by this Court on 23.5.2011 reading as under:- “DVSKJ:/23.5.2011 WP No.10701 of 2010 Neither the petitioner nor Mr. ND. Onkarappa, learned counsel for the petitioner is present before the court. The matter is listed for taking steps in respect of respondent No.14 who is one amongst the subsequent purchasers and who is also undoubtedly affected by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, but it is not known as to whether respondent Nos.4 to 18 who had made an attempt to get themselves impleaded as party respondents before the Deputy Commissioner during the pendency of Appeal No.SC/ST/A/2006-07 have filed any writ petition before this court questioning the legality of the order dated 12.10.2009 which is questioned by the writ petitioner in this writ petition so also the earlier order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.10.2006 [copy at Annexure-B] under which a series of sale transactions including the sale transaction in favour of the present writ petitioner dated 13.7.1995 executed by one Smt. Bibi Jan [not a party respondent to the writ petition] is invalidated. 2. Be that as it may, with the kind of developments that have taken place subsequent to filing of the writ petition, particularly, the present respondent No.19 having filed an application seeking for impleadment as a party respondent by filing an application having been ordered on 3.8.2010 reading as under, “The impleading applicant, Smt. Muppavarapu Rama Tulasamma claims to have purchased the very same property, which is the subject matter of this writ petition. Therefore she is a proper and necessary party for the adjudication of the issues involved in this petition. Her impleading application Misc. W. 5819/10 is allowed. Petitioner’s side to amend the cause title. One week’s time granted to do the needful.” the writ petition has acquired a totally different colour and dimension. 3. If submission of Sri. Mahabaleshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the applicant who had sought for impleadment and has become respondent No.19 and Mr. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate is to be accepted, the respondent No.19 claims interest in the very land, namely, 2 acres in Sy. 3. If submission of Sri. Mahabaleshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the applicant who had sought for impleadment and has become respondent No.19 and Mr. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate is to be accepted, the respondent No.19 claims interest in the very land, namely, 2 acres in Sy. No.326 of Hulimangala Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, as a subsequent purchaser from the original grantee or legal heir of the grantee as per sale transaction dated 17.2.2010 supported by an order of permission granted by the State Government in favour of the third respondent-legal heir of the original grantee for such sale transaction and therefore if at all will be the only person who would evince interest in the proceedings and the writ petitioner either way may not be any more interested in the subject matter. 4. However, this development which has taken place even during the pendency of the writ petition before this court is only a mirror held to the state of affairs that prevailed in our present governance, particularly, the manner in which the constitutional functionaries exercised their power and authority under different statutory provisions. It appears the writ petitioner had sub-divided the land into sites and had sold it away under different sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 18 who were the persons who sought for impleadment before the Deputy Commissioner in the then pending appeal. 5. It is obviously only these persons who would if at all be affected, but as indicated in the earlier paragraph of this order, it is not known as to whether they had themselves filed any writ petition to get over the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. A respondent can at the best support the order, but cannot attack the order and therefore it is immaterial as to whether the respondent No.14 is served or represented by counsel or otherwise. Notice issued to respondent No.14 is not yet returned by the postal department and therefore service is held to be sufficient with the non return of the cover and acknowledgement. 6. As the proceedings of the State Government may have some relevance on the writ petition, Mr. Notice issued to respondent No.14 is not yet returned by the postal department and therefore service is held to be sufficient with the non return of the cover and acknowledgement. 6. As the proceedings of the State Government may have some relevance on the writ petition, Mr. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to appear for the State Government also, who is primarily a necessary party in all these proceedings but a practice having been developed in this court, only to implead the statutory, in this court, only to implead the statutory authorities as respondents and not to implead the State – the relevant and necessary party as a respondent, it should be taken that the statutory authorities – respondents 1 and 2 are part of the State and therefore the State Government is a very relevant and existing respondent on record through these revenue officers. 7. Mr. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate, is directed to produce the records relating to the permission said to have been granted by the State Government in favour of third respondent to sell the land in favour of the respondent No.19, particularly, after it had been restored to the third respondent subsequent to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the appeal. 8. The provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978, [for short ‘the Act’] is meant to protect the interest of the members of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community by providing a sustenance to their livelihood by granting agricultural land. With the agricultural land having lost the characteristics in and around urbanized areas, that purpose is not really being served, but on the other hand, the provisions of the Act are more misused and abused by corrupt officials and politicians to favour the chosen few and to the detriment to the gullible third party purchasers, perhaps like the present respondent Nos.4 to who have been definitely taken for a ride by the writ petitioner. 9. Issue Rule. 10. List this writ petition for further orders on 30.5.2011 by which time Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate to produce the relevant records particularly, the record containing the Government order granting permission in favour of the third respondent under the provisions of sub-section [2] of section 4 of the Act. 11. Registry is directed to notify Sri. Issue Rule. 10. List this writ petition for further orders on 30.5.2011 by which time Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate to produce the relevant records particularly, the record containing the Government order granting permission in favour of the third respondent under the provisions of sub-section [2] of section 4 of the Act. 11. Registry is directed to notify Sri. N.D. Onkarappa learned counsel for the petitioner for his appearance on the next date of hearing and to forward a copy of this order directly to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, for compliance.” 26. Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the records are still not provided to him and may take some more time for him to secure the records and had sought for accommodation. 27. In matters of this nature prolonging the proceedings in a petition presented before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in my considered opinion, is nothing short of doing disservice to persons for whose benefit the legislature has enacted the law i.e., ‘The PTCL Act’. On the undisputed facts viz., the original grantee was a person belonging to depressed class or harijan community and the grant being in the year 1948 and the first transaction being of the year 1958 i.e. 10 years after the grant, the writ petition can be satisfactorily disposed of with this factual position and it is for this reason, I do not propose to postpone the matter any further. 28. The question as to whether the applicant before the Asst. Commissioner was a person belonging to scheduled caste community or whether she is a real daughter of the original grantee are all not very germane for examining the proceedings of the present nature. It is rather unfortunate that when this Court is exercising jurisdiction in petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, an impression has granted ground that the proceedings also should be examined as though it is an adversary litigation, when it is not so. Also when the authorities i.e., statutory authorities hold an enquiry in terms of Section 5 of the PTCL Act, the Asst. Also when the authorities i.e., statutory authorities hold an enquiry in terms of Section 5 of the PTCL Act, the Asst. Commissioner in the first instance and an Appellate Authority under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act the legal principles which have been evolved in the English Adversary which have been evolved in the English Adversary Legal System, may not be very relevant or applicable which is a statutory enquiry contemplated for a specific purpose, as is mandated under the Act! 29. The manner in which any proceedings are regulated as per rules by any authorities and as to what should be the cause of action are all matters guided by the statutory provision, when the purpose and intent is made clear by the statute. 30. Statute authorities if have taken care to follow principles of natural justice can be said to have acted in a fair and non-arbitrary manner and have applied the relevant statutory provisions to the fact situation and come out with a bona fide decision on the same, such a decision even if it is an erroneous one, is not normally interfered in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A finding of fact recorded by the authority is seldom found fault with until an unless it is a blatantly perverse inference drawn in law and on the available facts. The law in terms of the provisions of the Act is always against the purchaser, who purchases the land granted in favour of a person belonging to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. Unfortunately purchasers keep indulging in such purchases whether they have taken proper legal advice an those vendors are given proper legal advice or otherwise. 31. May be purchasers of such land become frustrated having invested good amount of their income, may be even well earned money but that in itself is not a criteria for giving excuses or justification by either the statutory authorities or in further review proceedings by this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for passing wrong, incorrect and law violating orders based on such irrelevant considerations like sympathy or hardship to a purchaser of the land as such aspects are taken care of by the legislature itself. In fact in our legal system justice is only in accordance with law and not independent of law. In fact in our legal system justice is only in accordance with law and not independent of law. The concept of justice has been taken care of by the legislature while enacting law, for the good and welfare of its citizens. 32. The duty of the court is only to ensure that such law is properly administered by the statutory authorities and the others act and pass orders in conformity with such laws. On an examination of the present orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner on such parameters. I find that the orders are law conforming and to consonance with the provisions of law as is applicable to the facts of the case. 33. The grievance of not according proper opportunity is only a ruse to somehow or the other to get over such orders. A drowning man finds even a straw good enough to clutch at in the hope that it can keep him floating! 34. Position of all purchasers of agricultural lands which had been granted in favour of persons belonging to scheduled caste community and which had been transacted in violation of the terms of the grant or without prior permission from the Government after the Act has come into force, whether or not grant certificate was available, is only to be tested against Rule 43(8) of the Rules, and the condition contained therein. Such condition is automatically attracted as can be inferred by the statutory authorities and by this court and authorities have been referred to that and that is good enough to sustain the orders. No other aspects are required to be examined in a proceeding of this nature. 35. Though Sri. Onkarappa, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are certain submitted that there are certain subsequent developments in the present case, particularly, the legal heirs of the grantee entering into some transactions for sale of the land even prior to the proceedings having come to an end before this court and it is only such subsequent purchasers who are behind the persons imposing such conditions, they are all not matters very germane for examination of correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. If there is misuse or abuse of the beneficial provision either by the grantee or legal heir of the grantee, that is a matter which has to be independently examined in proceedings elsewhere and not in this petition. 36. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, I do not find any illegality or even irregularity in the impugned orders and if the petitioner’s lawyers does not appear before the authorities to advance the case, that does not mean no proper opportunity had been given to the writ petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner and even if so, that want of opportunity is made good in the appeal that he had presented and wherein it appears he had urged some new grounds on factual basis. They are all not of much consequence in a situation of the present nature, where the law alone takes care on the undisputed facts for voiding all sale transactions from the year 1958 upto the year 1996. 37. It is for this reason, this writ petition has to be inevitably dismissed and is dismissed imposing cost of `25,000/- on the petitioner payable in favour of third respondent as such matters which perhaps deserve two minutes of the court’s times has consumed one half hours for no worthwhile reason or justification. 38. Cost to be deposited before this court within four weeks from today and awarded in favour of the third respondent who is permitted to draw the amount by making a suitable application through her counsel. If the cost is not deposited, registry to issue a certificate in favour of the third respondent who in turn can execute the certificate for recovering the amount from the petitioner as though it is a decree of the civil court.