Judgment :- 1. Writ petitioner claims to be a person belonging to scheduled caste community and on such premise an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.164 located at Duglapur Village, Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamangalore District, it appears had been granted in favour of the petitioner as is claimed and is evidenced by saguvali chit dated 21.12.1978 (copy produced as Annexure-E to the petition). 2. It appears the Asst. Commissioner cancelled the grant in terms of an order dated 27.2.1980 (copy produced as Annexure-C to the petition) on the premise that the writ petitioner was not a person without any agricultural holding, but he did have some lands in his holding. 3. The Asst. Commissioner also found that the grant itself was irregular as the authorities had not been convinced about the unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the subject land by the writ petitioner due to unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the subject lands and that the Tahsildar did not even satisfy himself of this position. The Asst. Commissioner also observed that the subject granted land had not been properly surveyed and on the other hand the Revenue Inspector had prepared a rough sketch and on such premise the land appears to have been granted as per the order dated 21.12.1978 contrary to the government order in respect of the persons who are in unauthorized occupation and cultivation and for grant of such lands in their favour etc. 4. The Asst. Commissioner also noticed that the grantee did not even furnish particulars of the holdings of other members of the family etc., and in the light of so many defects and irregularities the Asst. Commissioner being satisfied about the incongruence of the grant, exercising power under Section 25 r/w the provisions of Section 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, cancelled the grant order which had been issued by the Tahsildar in No. ODPR.180/1978-79 dated 21.12.1978. 5. Obvious of this development, it appears the grantee purports to have sold this extent of land in favour of the 4th respondent in the year 1994 as per the sale transaction dated 5.2.1994. 6. Nevertheless, petitioner appears to have made an application to the Asst. 5. Obvious of this development, it appears the grantee purports to have sold this extent of land in favour of the 4th respondent in the year 1994 as per the sale transaction dated 5.2.1994. 6. Nevertheless, petitioner appears to have made an application to the Asst. Commissioner invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to the PTCL Act); that he had sold the land in violation of the terms of the grant and therefore, the sale has to be invalidated, land resumed to the State and restored to the original grantee. 7. The Asst. Commissioner who held an enquiry in this regard found that out of the extent of 3 acres of land that had been granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1978, petitioner has sought to sell an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land on 5.2.1994 in favour of 4th respondent – one Mullakattaiah @ Mullaiah and another 1 acre 20 guntas of land in favour of one Chaamamma, W/o Sanna Veeranna in the same year and these transactions were subsequent to the Act coming into force. 8. The Asst. Commissioner secured the original grant records and found that the grant itself had come to be cancelled in terms of the order dated 27.2.1980 by his predecessor, and therefore, the Asst. Commissioner held that when the original grant itself had come to be cancelled the petitioner has no hold on the land in question and therefore, the question of further consideration of the application under the Act does not arise, and in this view of the matter accordingly dismissed the application of the petitioner for restoration of the land etc. 9. Aggrieved by this order petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner in PTL.03/2005-2006 in RA. No.15/2008-09. 10. The Deputy Commissioner held a detailed enquiry and found that the Asst. Commissioner has come to the right conclusion particularly, in rejecting the application of the petitioner as the grant had already been cancelled in the year 1980, the order is justified having regard to irregularities, illegalities that had been noticed by the Asst. Commissioner when the Asst. Commissioner passed the order in the year 2005, and therefore dismissed the appeal. 11. Commissioner has come to the right conclusion particularly, in rejecting the application of the petitioner as the grant had already been cancelled in the year 1980, the order is justified having regard to irregularities, illegalities that had been noticed by the Asst. Commissioner when the Asst. Commissioner passed the order in the year 2005, and therefore dismissed the appeal. 11. It is aggrieved by these orders, the present writ petition seeking the following prayer:- “ aquash the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 in PTL. No.3/2005-2006 and R.A. No15/2008-2009 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-B) and order dated 17.03.2005 passed SC/ST 4/2004-05 passed by 3rd respondent (Annexure-B) and order dated 27.08.1980 passed in LGR 230/1979-1980 passed by 3rd respondent (Annexure-C); b. and restore the land in favour of the petitioner on the basis of Saguvali Chit issued in favour of petitioner.” 12. Appearing on behalf of petitioner, submission of Mr. Manjunath, learned counsel, is that the cancellation of the original grant is without proper notice to the petitioner and therefore, the original cancellation in the year 1980 is not sustainable and when once the cancellation get revoked, provisions of the PTCL Act automatically operates and therefore, the petitioner should get relief etc. 13. Normally any order passed which is adverse to the interest of a person and with due notice, does not elicit approval of this Court and even in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such orders are invalidated by this Court and the concerned authority is directed to issue notice and provide an opportunity to the concerned person and then to pass orders on the merits of the matter. However in the present case, I do not find it necessary to follow this course of action in the facts and circumstances. 14. In this facts instance, I do not find such course of action is required for the simple reason that the petitioner through belonged to scheduled caste community, obviously has not availed the benefit given to him, but is including, more in abusing the facility extended to him. 15. 14. In this facts instance, I do not find such course of action is required for the simple reason that the petitioner through belonged to scheduled caste community, obviously has not availed the benefit given to him, but is including, more in abusing the facility extended to him. 15. Secondly and more importantly when the grant itself had been cancelled way back in the year 1980, petitioner pleading ignorance of the same and coming up with a writ petition in the year 2010, particularly, for challenging this cancellation is a cause highly belated in point of time and a claim to such relief is hit by delay and laches. The petitioner had come to know that his grant itself had been cancelled if not in the year 1980, at least when the Asst. Commissioner passed order dated 17.3.2005 (Annexure-B) rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. 16. In either view of the matter, the writ petition for questioning the cancellation of grant is one hit by delay and laches and in such circumstances, such orders passed under the Act do sustain and there is no need for variation of the orders passed by the Asst. Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, there is no need for interference with the orders passed by the revenue authorities, and this petition only deserves to be dismissed. 17. Absolutely no merit in the Writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed.