Judgment :- Lands granted in favour of persons belonging to scheduled caste/tribe community if had been transferred in violation of the conditions subject to which the land is granted, the transaction inevitably got voided under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the Act). 2. The present writ petition at the instance of purchaser of such a land is also one such instance, where some part of the granted land i.e. 30 guntas of land in Sy No.177 of Kadukothanahalli village, Maddur taluk, Mandya district had been purchased by predecessor of petitioners by two sale transactions effected in the years 1972 and 1977 (15 guntas each), whereas the subject land had been granted in the year 1963 with a condition that it should not be alienated for a period of 15 years and sagwali chit itself had been issued on 19-5-1971, which incorporated the condition of 15 years non-alienation from that date. 3. Such transaction had been found to attract Section 4 of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner, who directed resumption of the land to the state and restitution of the legal heirs of the original grantee as per his order dated 25-4-1989 (copy at Annexure-B to the writ petition). 4. This order was subject matter of an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, but the appeal having been dismissed, matter was carried to this court. Though writ petition had been dismissed, it was nevertheless subject matter of a writ appeal and as per the judgment dated 5-1-1996 (reported in 1996 (3) KLT 34), this court remanded the matter to Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry, particularly to ascertain as to whether the subject land had been granted on fixing an upset price and if so, the impact of the same on the transfer etc. 5. The matter having gone back to Assistant Commissioner. Assistant Commissioner held a fresh enquiry and as per his order dated 31-12-1996, reiterated the order as passed in the earlier round. A further appeal to Deputy Commissioner having been dismissed, the very petitioner approached this court by filing WP 7026 of 1999 and a division bench of this court, again allowed this petition as per order dated 4-10-2001, quashed the orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and restored the section 5 proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner for one more round of enquiry! It is in this round of enquiry the Assistant Commissioner passed the order dated 21-3-2006 (Annexure-D) yet again reiterating the earlier version and by recording a finding that the grant of the subject land to the husband of Smt. Ningamma on collecting a sum of Rs.300/- fixing upset price at Rs.350/- per acre, was only a nominal price for the land but neither the market value nor the upset price and therefore was as good as a free grant etc. 6. This order was again made subject matter of an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner having in great detail examined as to what kind of upset price had been fixed in respect of the land, which was at Rs. 350/-per acre and this price having been compared with the prevalent marked price during the relevant period and even subsequent transactions indicating it was of much higher value, held that it was no real upset price but only a nominal price and therefore upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 7. It is against these orders, the present writ petitions. 8. Noticed had been issued to respondents and the statutory respondents – respondents 1 and 2 – are represented by Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA and the wife and the son of the original grantee, arrayed as respondents 3 and 4, are represented by Sri M Shivaprasad. 9. I have heard Sri M.K. Shivaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents. 10. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that when once the land had been granted on fixing an upset price, conditions do not operate, sale should be taken to be an absolute sale etc., and therefore the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable, more so when the matter had been remanded by this court on two occasions earlier for examination as to whether the land was granted on fixing an upset price, that is not properly done and the order is not sustainable in the present round also. 11. 11. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 is that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are very clear; that the so-called upset price is not the value of the land but it is far below the value and only a nominal price collected and nothing more and therefore conditions necessarily operate and the orders passed by the authorities are in consonance with the provisions of the Act and there is no need to interfere with them. 12. Learned AGA also supports the orders passed by Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and submits that the authorities have taken care to verify the price of the land even on the date and also compared with the subsequent transactions and found that it was not the market value but only a nominal price and in support of his submission, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Siddegowdavs Assistant Commissioner ( AIR 2003 SC 1290 ). 13. Submissions made on behalf of the respondents are correct, proper and merit acceptance. Orders passed by the authorities are perfectly valid orders, do not call for any interference and writ petition only deserves to be dismissed. 14. Before parting, I cannot help noticing that in matters arising out of the provisions of the Act, though the main object of the Act is to resume the land which had been transacted in violation of the conditions of grant and to restitute to the original grantee or legal heirs, unending litigation has only defeated the very purpose and object of the Act and matters having remanded to one authority or the other on the flimsiest of grounds, appears to have been a passion. 15. Courts and judges do not make law. Courts examine orders passed by the administrative and statutory authorities for their conformity with the statutory provisions on the touchstone of the relevant legislation and on the touchstone of Articles of the Constitution of India, as high court is exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and functions as a constitutional court. 16. High court while exercising this jurisdiction does not act as an appellate authority to set aside the orders or for remanding etc., but is only exercising jurisdiction of judicial review of administrative and legislative actions. 17. 16. High court while exercising this jurisdiction does not act as an appellate authority to set aside the orders or for remanding etc., but is only exercising jurisdiction of judicial review of administrative and legislative actions. 17. The present writ litigation is the third round before this court itself and proceedings were begun under the provisions of the Act way back in the year 1981 i.e. 30 years ago, but is still to see its end! Not a very complimentary situation for our legal and judicial systems! 18. Lack of proper understanding of the scope of constitutional jurisdiction on the part of the superior courts has only added to the miseries of persons for whose benefit the law has been made. A law enacted by the legislature for the benefit of such gullible, socially deprived class of persons has proved to be a curse for them due to such unending litigation and these persons not having the means and ability to fight affluent, socially well established purchasers many a times may not even be able to survive such protracted litigation. 19. It is high time that courts also learnt to respect the legislative intent and purpose and interference in writ jurisdiction should be minimal and more so when orders passed by authorities below are one to achieve and subserve the purpose and object of the legislation. 20. In the circumstance, the interim order of stay granted earlier is vacated and the writ petition is dismissed, levying exemplary cost of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) on the petitioners in favour of respondents 3 and 4. Cost to be deposited before this court by the petitioners within four weeks from today, failing which, the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 for recovery of the cost, as though it is a decree passed by a civil court.