ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. 1. In this writ petition petitioners are calling in question order dated 5-2-2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners herein and confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division dated 20-9-2010. Petitioners are claiming to be the grandchildren of the original grantee. According to them, land bearing Sy. No. 177/p36 of Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk to an extent of 2 acres, was an agricultural land granted under darkasth in favour of their grandfather late Venkataramanappa alias Munivenkataramanappa S/o. Guddeppa. They contend that grandfather of the petitioners belonged to Scheduled Caste and on 30-1-1975, original grantee sold the property to one Late P. Ramanna and on 16-7-2005 respondents 5 to 7, who are L.Rs. of Ramanna, sold the property to respondent 8; as these sale transactions were carried out without prior permission of the Government and in violation of Section 4(2) of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the transactions were void. 2. Petitioners filed application seeking resumption and restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner conducted an enquiry and passed the order at Annexure-B, dated 29-9-2010 holding that no documents had been produced nor were forthcoming to hold that grandfather of the petitioners was granted 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 177/8 (old Number) and 177/p36 (new number), therefore, claim made by them was dismissed. Liberty was, however, reserved to the petitioners to put forth their claim afresh after collecting the records relating to the grant of land in question and to show that land was granted in favour of their grandfather. 3. This order was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner by filing No. SC. ST (A) 96/2010-2011. The Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal confirming the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has also found on re-examination of the matter that no documents showing the grant of land in the name of Venkataramanappa alias Munivenkataramanappa, the alleged grandfather of the petitioners was produced. ST (A) 96/2010-2011. The Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal confirming the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has also found on re-examination of the matter that no documents showing the grant of land in the name of Venkataramanappa alias Munivenkataramanappa, the alleged grandfather of the petitioners was produced. The Deputy Commissioner has further found that even if it has to be presumed that the land was granted during the year 1955-1956 in favour to the grandfather of the petitioners-Venkataramanappa alias Munivenkataramanappa, as the land had been alienated for the first time during the year 1975 after lapse of 20 years from the date of grant, it could not be said that there was violations of the non-alienation condition of 15 years as was in force in terms of the Rules then prevailing. In this regard, Deputy Commissioner has placed reliance on the principles laid down in the decision reported in the case of Bhemanna v. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District and Others, 2011 (1) Kar L.J. 403 (DB) : ILR 2010 Kar. 5011 (DB). 4. It is thus clear that first of all there is no proof to show that grandfather of the petitioners was granted this land. Secondly, it is clear that the sale was after a lapse of 15 years from the date of grant, which was the period of non-alienation in force during the relevant period. On both counts petitioners have failed to establish their case. Hence, in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any merit in this petition. Petitions are accordingly, dismissed. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks for respondents 1 to 4.