ORDER The petitions arise out of the finding rendered by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in his order dated 18.5.2007 (annexure L in WP 9643/2007) confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in resuming the land in favour of the grantee Muniyappa; annexure P dated 17.12.2007 in WP 3649/2008 setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directing the Tahsildar to effect changes in the mutation in favour of the appellant – Nilgiri Dairy (Bangalore) Pvt Ltd; order dated 28.7.2007 – annexure W in WP 11723/2009 according permission to sell the land to an extent of 4.00 acres in Sy.No.79. In WP 9643/2007, it is the case of the petitioner – Redwood Enterprises Pvt Ltd, represented by its Director that he has purchased the property to the extent of 2.00 acres situate at Poojanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk from his vendor B Ramesh who in turn had purchased from S M Nagaraju. This S M Nagaraju had purchased the property from his predecessor Muniyappa. In WP 3649/2008, petitioners claim to be the grantee who is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives. Now the legal representatives who are on record are seeking once again for resumption of the land in their favour on the ground that the property is a granted land and they are entitled for resumption as there is violation of S.4(2) of the SC/ST (PTCL) Act. In this case, the property was sold by Muniyappa under the permission of the State Government, in favour of B R Ramesh. Mr K V Narasimhan, learned counsel represents the purchaser of the land on such conversion order by the government. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners in WP 3649/2008 is B R Ramesh had purchased the property from Muniyappa during his life time on such conversion order obtained from the Deputy Commissioner that too after the non-alienation period of fifteen years was completed. His stand is, since the property was purchased subsequently after the expiry of the non-alienation period, that too after obtaining permission, the purchased made by B R Ramesh from Muniyappa though is subsequent, is a valid sale in compliance of the provisions of the PTCL Act, as such, the purchase has to be held valid. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the petitions filed by the other set of purchasers from Muniyappa and thereon. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the petitions filed by the other set of purchasers from Muniyappa and thereon. This is the crux of the case. However, as to the nature of grant of land, according to the petitioners in WP 9643/2007 and 11723/2009, they have purchased 2.00 acres of land each from one B Ramesh who had purchased from one S M Nagaraju and S M Nagaraju in turn, had purchased the property from Muniyappa, to make it specific, after completion of fifteen years of non-alienation clause. Now the question is whether under the PTCL Act such a permission is needed to be obtained from the grantee/occupant of the land who was in unauthorized cultivation and occupation of the land under the general grant rules. It transpires that throughout as contended by the petitioner in WP 3649/2008, such sale made in favour of S M Nagaraju by Muniyappa was a non-est sale as it was without permission of the government. Secondly, it falls under the provisions of S.3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. Interpretation is sought to be done by referring to two of the decisions of this Court one by a Single Judge and another by a Division Bench. Referring to the judgment rendered by Justice D V Shylendra Kumar in the case of M Pushpavathi Vs S Papanna -2006 (6) KLJ 16 with reference to the application of the provisions of S.3(1) of the PTCL Act in respect of the land which was granted to SC/ST persons for an upset price, also this order was taken in appeal before the Division Bench , it is stated, the Division Bench referring to the fact that the land was granted for an upset price, categorically found that it falls within the ambit of S.3(1) of the Act. On the other hand, there are two issues to be noted – one is with respect to whether this grant made in favour of Muniyappa falls under S.3(1) of the PTCL Act and whether this Muniyappa is a Christian or a person belong to SC/ST. In this regard, of course the petitioners in WP 9643/2007 and 11723/2009 have moved this Court since they were not parties to the proceedings before this Court in Pushpavathi’s case before the Single Judge and also in appeal. It is noted, there is a reference to caste also. In this regard, of course the petitioners in WP 9643/2007 and 11723/2009 have moved this Court since they were not parties to the proceedings before this Court in Pushpavathi’s case before the Single Judge and also in appeal. It is noted, there is a reference to caste also. This, according to the petitioners in WP 3649/2008, is a concluded aspect as regards the caste of Muniyappa is concerned. It is also stated, Muniyappa had filed a petition originally to stand by his contention that he belongs to SC/ST community. Of course this has been contraverted by the counsel for the petitioner in WP 11723/2009 that since the petitioner was not a party in Pushpavathi’s case, in the writ petition filed by him independently since there is a provision for appeal and as a matter of fact finding either the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner should have inquired into the matter in stead of directing to prefer writ petition and liberty was given to raise all such contentions before the Deputy Commissioner irrespective of the observation made in Pushpavathi’s case by the Single Judge and the Division Bench. In that regard, the contention raised by the petitioners in WP 9643/2007 and 11723/2009 is that there are relevant and genuine documents available that this Muniyappa belongs to Christian community though some contrary documents are sought to be produced by the contesting respondent. According to them, this Muniyappa is a Christian and not a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Tribe. Apart from that, it is the contention of the petitioner in WP 11723/2009 that there are positive documents which has been considered by the Deputy Commissioner on the affidavit filed by Muniyappa himself and in the proceedings subsequent to the order of this Court in WP 9573/2006 (annexure L in WP 3649/2008) where an affidavit is filed by the petitioner who is the deceased that he belongs to Christian community and anything issued by the Church regarding performance of marriage is not an authentic document but a perusal of the various documents by the revenue authorities as per the submission of the counsel in WP 9643/2007, do depict that this Muniyappa belongs to Christian community and not a person belonging to SC/ST though it is submitted by Mr K V Narasimhan that there is a rejoinder filed in this regard. What is pertinent to note is, certain documents are produced by Muniyappa in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner stating that he belongs to Christian community. Though some documents with regard to the marriage is not authentic document in the sense, on verification it was found there was no such entry made in the Register of the Church. Now the finding given by the Deputy Commissioner is the subject matter of challenge in WP 3649/2008. On the second aspect with regard to the application of the provisions of the PTCL Act and violation thereon is concerned, learned counsel Sri K Suman representing the petitioner in WP 11723/2009 has relied upon the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in similar circumstances, in the case of Krishnamurthy Vs Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur – 2002(5) KLJ 258 wherein in para 7, while interpreting S. 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, it is held:: On a perusal of the aims and objects of the PTCL Act and especially the definition of ‘granted land’ as per S.3(1)(b), it s seen that to bring any granted land within the definition the condition precedent is that such land should have been granted to a person belonging to either SC or ST. It is to be remembered here itself that under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and various other provisions like the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Land Grant Rules, etc., time and again provisions are made to encourage cultivation and for grant of lands to persons who do not own land or who belong to either depressed class or who are below the poverty line. In a loose sense, all such granted lands cannot be the land coming within the purview of S.3(1)(b) as stated and as is defined, the land must have been granted only to a person who belongs to either SC/ST. If the grant is for any other reason and even if incidentally such grantee belongs to SC or ST, in my view, the PTCL Act is not attracted. If the grant is for any other reason and even if incidentally such grantee belongs to SC or ST, in my view, the PTCL Act is not attracted. In a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Abdul Haq Shamshuddin Saheb Vs Deputy Commissioner, U K District, Karwar & Ors – 2002(5) KLJ 109, considering similar question as to the grant under the Land Revenue Act to the Land Grant Rules to a person belonging to and only on that count vis-avis the grant or conferment of right under the Land Reforms Act, this Court has held that to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act it must be shown that the land was granted to a person belonging to SC or ST only on that count and not otherwise. This more so, since like the provisions of the Land Reforms Act any person belonging to either SC or ST or even higher class can claim grant of occupancy right and, if he shows compliance with the necessary conditions, he is entitled for such conferment of occupancy rights or grant of the land. At that stage, it is not necessary that he should belong to a particular caste or community. As such, reiterating the same principle in my view to bring a land within the definition of ‘granted land’ as per S.3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act as well as the applicability and invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act, it is mandatory and necessary to show that the land in question was granted to the petitioner or the claimant/grantee only on the ground that he belongs to depress class or community. A perusal of the observation made makes it clear that it has been specifically dealt with regard to general grants on the basis of unauthorized occupation of government land. In order to make the PTCL Act to it is mandatory and necessary to show that land in question was granted to the petitioner only on the ground that he belongs to depressed class or community. Further, relying upon the reference order of the Full Bench of this Court in para 13 in the case of Mohd. Jaffar & Anr Vs State of Karnataka & Ors -2003(1) KLJ 337, counsel tried to emphasize on the Land Reforms Act and it objects. Further, relying upon the reference order of the Full Bench of this Court in para 13 in the case of Mohd. Jaffar & Anr Vs State of Karnataka & Ors -2003(1) KLJ 337, counsel tried to emphasize on the Land Reforms Act and it objects. In this case, on the question referred to the Full Bench – Whether the land in respect of which occupancy rights have been conferred in favour of a tenant under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 can be construed as ‘granted land’ as defined under S.3(b) of the Karnataka C/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, wherever the tenant belongs to SC or ST and thus is amenable to the jurisdiction and operation of the PTCL Act or only restricted meaning to be given in this regard? In para 12, it is observed: A bare reading of S.3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act makes it clear that the land should be granted by the government and such land is to be granted to a person belonging to SC or the ST under the relevant law including agrarian reforms. Once the land is held to be a granted land, the restriction contained in S.4 regarding the apprehension of transfer of land would apply, meaning thereby such land should be granted by the government. S.77 of the KLR Act deals with disposal of surplus land and S.77 A, which has been inserted by Act No.23 of 1998 with effect from 1.11.1998, deals with grant of land in certain cases wherein the tenant was cultivating the land on 1.3.1974 has failed to apply for occupancy right and the land has vested with the government under S.44 of the Act. Further, it is also observed:: The preamble to the KLR Act clearly shows that the Act is enacted to confer ownership on the tenants and wherefore, it is clear that the conferment of occupancy right on the tenant who was personally cultivating the land on 1.3.1974 is conferment of ownership on the tenant as per the preamble to the Act and the same is subject to certain restrictions which are imposed in the certificate of registration issued under S.55 of the Act in Form 10. It is also seen that conferment of occupancy right is only declaration of the fact that the tenant who was personally cultivating the land on 1.3.1974 and the land which has vested with the government, the tenant is declared as the occupant of the said land subject to the restrictions contained in the certificate of registration and if the tenant proves that he has been personally cultivating the land on 1.3.1974, he cannot be denied conferment of occupancy right. This analogy and ratio has been referred to contend that under the provisions of Land Revenue Act for conferment of occupancy right on unauthorized occupants irrespective of the fact that the person belongs to SC/ST or otherwise by virtue of the regulation, after inquiry such grants are made for occupancy rights by the Deputy Commissioner and such conferment will be there subject to particulars of occupation and similar such grants are made in the case of tenancy rights under the Land Reforms Act i.e., as on 1.3.1974 if the person is a tenant cultivating the land, he would be granted occupancy rights without there being a reference whether it is being cultivated by a SC or ST or other person. With this analogy, relying on the ratio laid down by Justice S R Bannurmath in Krishnamurthy’s case noted supra, counsel contended that this case / sale does not fall within the purview of the provisions of the PTCL Act. Thus, there are two aspects – one is with reference to the caste of Muniyappa whether he belongs to SC/ST. Of course as per certain documents which is sought to be produced by the purchasers directly from Muniyappa through S M Nagaraju, their purchase holds good and subsequent sale made by B R Ramesh who has purchased from Muniyappa, taking into consideration the contention that he is entitled for resumption, in the context, that he is SC/ST is not available. The subsequent petition filed by these two persons before the Deputy Commissioner, apart from the documents produced prove that after inquiry by the revenue authorities with regard to the caste is concerned, Muniyappa is stated to belong to Christian community and not to SC/ST community. The second aspect is, the provisions of S.3(1)(b) of the Act does not apply to the case on hand. The land grant is under the Land Revenue Act and is also not based on particular grant made. The second aspect is, the provisions of S.3(1)(b) of the Act does not apply to the case on hand. The land grant is under the Land Revenue Act and is also not based on particular grant made. Of course, it is submitted by Sri K Suman, learned counsel representing the petitioners who have purchased the property from S M Nagaraju and thereafter from B Ramesh, that the judgment of Justice Bannurmath in Krishnamurthy’s case applies to the facts and circumstances of the Case. I am also of the view that the original sale made by Muniyappa in favour of S M Nagaraju and in turn in favour of B Ramesh holds good as against the contention raised on behalf of Muniyappa and the purchase by B R Ramesh directly from Muniyappa who contends that it has been sold in his favour after obtaining permission from the government. To conclude, as a matter of fact though the grant condition with respect to unauthorized occupation/cultivation was for a period of fifteen years, after completion of that period the first sale had taken place. On the other hand, Muniyappa (his legal representatives) tried to get back the land by way of resumption stating that he belongs to SC/ST community and thereafter, after obtaining permission from the government, has effected a sale, it does not hold water since the very land, first in point of time, is sold in favour of S M Nagaraju and thereafter to B Ramesh and other interested persons herein and those sales do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality in view of the observation made above and also the observation made by the Full Bench in this context. The property alienated by Muniyappa, does not fall within the ambit of S.3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. The sale made by B Ramesh in favour of the petitioners in WP 9643/2007 and 11723/2009 is held valid vis a vis the sale made in favour of B R Ramesh by Muniyappa. As such, the sale effected by deceased Muniyappa in favour of B R Ramesh has to treated as invalid as the provisions of the PTCL Act is not applicable to the case on hand. As such, the sale effected by deceased Muniyappa in favour of B R Ramesh has to treated as invalid as the provisions of the PTCL Act is not applicable to the case on hand. *The subsequent sale made by Muniyappa in favour of M/s C & C Hotels Venture Pvt Ltd., dated 24.12.2008 is also held invalid as the petitioner in WP 11723/2009 is in possession of the property by virtue of the first round of sale made by Muniyappa in favour of Nagaraju and thereafter, from Nagaraju to others. Further more, it is made specific that deceased Muniyappa belonged to Christian community and not a Scheduled Caste person. As regards the land in question sold in favour of S M Nagaraju originally by Muniyappa after completion of non-alienation period of fifteen years, since the provisions of PTCL Act is not applicable as Muniyappa does not belong to Scheduled Caste/Tribe, question of seeking permission from the government to effect sale is not at all necessary Ordered accordingly. Petitions are disposed of.