ORDER : A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of one Yamanappa Talawar, who was the landholder of the property in question. The land having been granted under the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short, 'K.V.O.A. Act'), was sold to respondents. Sri Yamanappa Talawar having died, petitioner initiated a proceeding before respondent 2, in P.T.C.L. Case No. C.R. 145/2003-04. Respondent 2 having regard to the undisputed fact that the property alienated was not a granted land, by an order dated 19-3-2005, as at Annexure-G, rejected the claim. Assailing the said order, appeal having been filed, under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'P.T.C.L. Act') and respondent 1 having passed the order dated 29-5-2014, as at Annexure-A, dismissing the appeal and thereby upheld the said order of respondent 2, this writ petition was filed to quash the orders, as at Annexures-A and G. Sri M. Siddaraj, learned Advocate, did not dispute the fact that as has been found by respondents 1 and 2 in the orders, as at Annexures-G and A, that the land was not granted by the Government and as such, the provisions of the Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979 are not attracted. His contention is that the alienation was in violation of the provisions of the K.V.O.A. Act and hence, respondents 1 and 2 have committed illegality in negating the case of the petitioner. If there is violation of any of the conditions of the grant made under K.V.O.A. Act, the petitioner, claiming to be the legal heir of the grantee-Yamanappa Talawar, ought to have invoked jurisdiction of the Competent Authority, under the provisions of the said Act and sought the relief. Instead, respondent 2, having been approached for grant of relief of declaring the alienation of the property made by his father, as null and void i.e., in exercise of power under the provisions of Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979, respondent 2 is justified in passing the order, as at Annexure-G and the appeal though was not diligently prosecuted, respondent 1 is justified in examining the record and dismissing the appeal vide order as at Annexure-A. 2. In Jagadish v. State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, represented by its Secretary and Others, ILR 2013 Kar. In Jagadish v. State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, represented by its Secretary and Others, ILR 2013 Kar. 4091 (DB), it has been held that definition of 'a granted land' appearing in Karnataka Act 2 of 1979, it is clear that the Legislature thought it fit to exclude certain lands granted to SC/ST persons from the purview of the definition of 'granted land' and if by virtue of hereditary offices or rights, if the land is granted to a SC or ST person, same stands excluded from the definition of granted land under P.T.C.L. Act and as such, provisions of P.T.C.L. Act cannot be invoked. The impugned orders, as at Annexures-A and G, passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively, being in conformity with the law and the decision, noticed supra, this writ petition being devoid of merit, is rejected. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional authority, under the K.V.O.A. Act, for relief, if any.