Judgment :- 1. A writ petition without any rhyme or reason or without any ground against a remand order passed by the Deputy Commissioner while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, the Act] as per order dated 29-6-2010 [copy of Annexure-F to the writ petition]. 2. The Deputy Commissioner having entertained an appeal under Section 5A of the Act against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner closing the enquiry under Section 5 of the Act after lapse of 21 years and having set aside the order and having directed the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh enquiry and decision, petitioner, purchaser of subject land granted in the year 1974 in an extent of 2 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.31 of Madanayakanahalli village, Maddur taluk, Mandya district, which had been granted under dharkast proceedings as under grant order dated 12-1-1953, is before this court, contending that the Deputy Commissioner could not have entertained the appeal after such lapse of time etc., and therefore remand order is not justified. 3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submission of Sri L Raja, learned counsel, is that the Deputy Commissioner could not have entertained the appeal after lapse of 21 years, when the limitation prescribed under Section 5A-1A of the Act is three months from the date of order communicated, that with the Assistant Commissioner having passed the order on 2-1-1986, appeal before the Deputy Commissioner is highly belated and therefore the appeal should not have been entertained. 4. Notices had been issued to the respondents Statutory authorities-respondents 1 and 2-are represented by Sri R Om Kumar, learned AGA and on behalf of respondents 3 to 6, Sri C Basavaiah, advocate has filed power. 5. 4. Notices had been issued to the respondents Statutory authorities-respondents 1 and 2-are represented by Sri R Om Kumar, learned AGA and on behalf of respondents 3 to 6, Sri C Basavaiah, advocate has filed power. 5. Sri R Om Kumar, learned AGA, points out that the proviso to Section 5A-1A of the Act does enable the Deputy Commissioner to admit and entertain an appeal even beyond the period of three months, if he is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period and it is also pointed out that the appellate provision itself being a later insertion to the Act, introduced with effect from 13-4-1992, whereas the Assistant Commissioner passed the order in the year 1986, the applicant before the Assistant Commissioner, perhaps, become wise after by some concerned or interested persons brought this to his notice and therefore the Deputy Commissioner has rightly condoned the delay and entertained the appeal and the order being only for remand, no need to interfere with in writ jurisdiction. 6. It is true that a remand order is, normally not interfered by this Court in writ jurisdiction as a matter of routine. The proceedings under the Act are neither adversary in nature nor the legal principle evolved in the context of conventional English legal system in an adversary system of adjudication of lis applies while the statutory authorities under the Act hold enquiry under Section 5 in the first instance and an appeal against that order under Section 5A is examined by the Deputy Commissioner as appellate authority. 7. The power of appellate authority is normally coextensive with the power of the original authority, unless statue otherwise restricts the power of the appellate authority. 7. The power of appellate authority is normally coextensive with the power of the original authority, unless statue otherwise restricts the power of the appellate authority. Proceedings under Section 5 is not in the nature of an adversary lis between a grantee or his legal heir on the one side and the purchaser on the other, but is more in the nature of a statutory proceeding, an enquiry held for the purpose of resumption of granted land if it is found in possession of a purchaser or a person claiming under such purchaser, when the grantee has parted with the land either in violation of the terms of the grant if the transaction was before the Act coming into force and thereafter if it is not accompanied by a prior permission for the transfer granted in favour of the parties by the State Government. 8. Section 5 enquiry is not necessarily to be instituted only at the instance of either the grantee or his/her legal heir/s but even the Assistant Commissioner is enjoined to take suo motu enquiry for resumption of land to the state and to restitute it to the grantee or his/her legal heirs. 9. It is of considerable significance to understand the scope of Section 5A in the background of Section 4 of the Act, which is a provision to invalidate a transfer in violation of the terms of the grant. Assistant Commissioner does not invalidate a transaction but only takes note of the invalidation achieved in law by operation of Section 4 of the Act and for implementation or effectuation of this legal position and for resumption and restitution of the land, an enquiry is held. There is no time limit prescribed under the Act for resumption. 10. When such is the nature of proceedings, prescribing time limit of three months or any other time for preferring an appeal against the order which is not sustainable in law, but erroneously or illegally passed by the Assistant Commissioner, appears to be not a very satisfactory provision in the background of the scheme of the statutory provision of the Act and the purpose and object of the legislation. 11. 11. Section 5A-1A of the Act itself has been introduced into the statute book by way of an amendment by Act No 8 of 1992 with effect from 13-4-1992 and in the light of the observation made by the Apex Court that to make the provisions of the act constitutional, at least there should be one appellate remedy in respect of order passed by the Assistant Commissioner acting as the inquiring authority, as otherwise if the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is allowed to become final, it may possibly lead to arbitrary exercise of power by this authority and invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being not possible for interference on facts nor the writ jurisdiction being an appellate remedy, providing an appellate provision was most desirable etc., was the observation of the Supreme Court. 12. However, while incorporating the appellate provision, the framers of law and legislation do not appear to have kept in mind the scheme of the Act and the legislative purpose for ushering in such a social welfare legislation, but have made a provision for one appeal as in any other enactment! 13. It is also to be noticed that on a technical reading of Section 5A, it may appeal that an appeal lies only at the instance of a person aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, in the sense, an order that can be passed by the Assistant Commissioner being only for resumption and restitution of land, if the proceedings are dropped or Section 5 enquiry does not result in such a positive order, there can be no appeal. Mr. Om Kumar, learned AGA points out that the second proviso to Section 5A- 1A reading as under: Provided further that the Deputy Commissioner shall admit an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner holding that transfer of any granted land is not null and void before the date of such commencement, if, on the said date, a writ petition preferred against such order or an appeal preferred against the order passed in such writ petition is pending in any court. And submits that this proviso does imply that an appeal does lie even at the instance of a grantee or legal heir of the grantee in a situation where the Assistant Commissioner has opined that the transaction is not null and void due to non-applicability of the provisions of the Act or for any other reasons. 14. Be that as it may, the appellate power if is to be understood as coextensive with the original power, imposing fetter on the exercise of the appellate power within a particular time, when no time limit is imposed in Section 5 of the Act for the exercise or original power, it may not be a very satisfactory manner of providing appellate remedy, by indicating that the appeal remedy should be availed within a period of 3 months etc… 15. When it is possible that the Assistant Commissioner can be activated, so long as a granted land remains in the possession of a purchaser or any other third party who has got into possession under a transaction which attracts the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and as sub-section (3) of Section 5 raises a presumption that possession of such person to be under a voided transaction and therefore illegal and therefore if the Assistant Commissioner can be activated at any point of time for resumption and restitution so long as the possession of the purchaser or any other person who is not either a grantee or a person claiming under the grantee is in possession of a granted land and as every moment of such illegal or unauthorized occupation of the granted land by a purchaser or any other person gives rise to a fresh cause of action to move the Assistant Commissioner for action for an enquiry under Section 5 of the Act. Putting a fetter like the time limit of 3 months to prefer an appeal against an order of the Assistant Commissioner passed under Section 5 of the Act does not appear to be either reasonable or satisfactory. These aspects appear to have escaped the attention of framers of law and needs a fresh look at the hands of the legislature. 16. These aspects appear to have escaped the attention of framers of law and needs a fresh look at the hands of the legislature. 16. However, in the present case, only reason why the matter is not required to be further examined is that the further pendency of this writ petition will only prolong the length of litigation and the misery and hardship of the respondents legal heirs of the original grantee, otherwise the Act, which is meant to be a beneficial piece of legislation for the benefit and welfare of persons belonging to SC/ST community, on the contrary may result in the heaping of hardship and agony on them, and therefore such examination is not undertaken in this writ petition, as it is desirable that the Assistant Commissioner realizes his duty and responsibility and acts in a proper manner, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 4 and the Act; that the subject grant was of the year 1953, when the statutory condition of permanent non-alienation was in force under the Mysore Land Revenue Code and therefore examining the transaction of the year 1974 should be in the background of this statutory provision. 17. It is, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without disturbing the order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner, but the petitioner is mulcted with cost of `5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) in favour of respondents 3 to 6, to be shared equally amongst them. Cost to be deposited before this court by the petitioner within four weeks from today, failing which, the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the respondents 3 to 6 for recovery of the cost, as though it is a decree passed by a civil court. On such deposit, respondents 3 to 6 are permitted to draw the amount through their counsel. 18. Assistant Commissioner is directed to complete the enquiry under Section 5 of the Act, now before him pursuant to the remand order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, without any further delay and at any rate not later than four months from today. On such deposit, respondents 3 to 6 are permitted to draw the amount through their counsel. 18. Assistant Commissioner is directed to complete the enquiry under Section 5 of the Act, now before him pursuant to the remand order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, without any further delay and at any rate not later than four months from today. The petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 6 to appear before the Assistant Commissioner for such enquiry on 19-9-2011, as suggested by Sri L Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner, without awaiting for issue of any further notice from the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner to take up the matter on 19.09.2011 and regulate further proceedings as per his orders, to ensure compliance with this order. 19. Registrar General of this court is directed to forward copies of this order to the Karnataka State Law Commission and the Secretary to the Government, Law Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.