ORDER : S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J. 1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 16-7-2001 passed by respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, in case No. LND:SC.ST(A).22/1998-99, wherein the order passed by respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bengaluru, in case No. LND.SCST.39/96-97, dated 26-9-1998, has been set aside. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case is that his father, Sri Ganganarasaiah, was lessee of land to an extent of 2 acres in Sy. No. 45, situate in Obalapura Village, Thymagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, which was given to his father under 'Grow More Food Scheme' in the year 1962. It is seen that it was for a limited period of 5 years. After the expiry of the lease, petitioner's father continued to be in unauthorised possession and cultivation of the same. Though he did not have any legal right, he is said to have sold the aforesaid land in favour of respondent 4 herein under sale deed dated 8-10-1990, which was registered on 6-11-1990. 2. The original lessee is said to have filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL Act') in No. LND.SCST.39/96-97 before respondent 2 seeking restoration of the land in his favour. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the original lessee is said to have died. However, his legal representatives were not brought on record. Respondent 2 herein, having found that the original lessee -- Ganganarasaiah had died and his legal representatives were not residing in the village, after affording opportunity of hearing to respondent 4 herein and considering the report of the Tahasildar and the fact that the land in question was alienated by the original lessee after coming into force of the PTCL Act, passed an order under Section 5(1)(a) of the said Act on 26-9-1998, resuming the land to the Government. 3. 3. The said order of respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner was challenged by respondent 4 herein in an appeal, which was numbered as LND.SC.ST.(A).22/98-99, before respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner on the premise that alienation of the said land made by the original lessee in his favour after a lapse of 28 years from the date of lease was not in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and in respect of the land granted under the 'G.M.F. Scheme', the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable and respondent 2 was not justified in resuming the land to the Government. 4. Respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner after considering the contentions of the parties and the material on record, by judgment dated 16-7-2001, has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner dated 26-9-1998. Being aggrieved by the same, the son of the original lessee, has filed this petition contending that his father had died during the pendency of the proceedings before respondent 2 and since his legal representatives were not brought on record, proceedings had abated and therefore, the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be set aside. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Counsel for respondent 4 and perused the material available on record. On going through the same, it is clear that respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner has rightly considered the material available on record and has followed the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Shivanna v. State of Karnataka and Others, 1989(1) Kar. L.J. 294, the relevant portion of which is culled out in the judgment dated 16-7-2001 as under: "Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978, Sections 4 and 5 -- Land granted to lessee of an agricultural land under Rule 43-J of Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1969 - Conditions of Rule 43-G not being applicable to such land, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act are not applicable - Explained." 6. This Court find that respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner has rightly followed the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in declaring that leasehold right of an agricultural land under Rule 43-J of Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1969, would not attract the conditions of Rule 43-G as the same not being applicable to such land and therefore, there cannot be said to be any violation of the condition for the purpose of attracting Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. In fact, under the similar fact situation, the Division Bench of this Court while considering the challenge to land granted under Grow More Food Scheme in the matter of Muniraju and Others v State of Karnataka and Others, 2015(3) Kar. L.J. 497 (DB), has held as under: "14. When the land is taken under 'Grow More Food Scheme', the lessee is not required to pay rent or lease for the first year and he was required to pay half of the assessment of the land for the subsequent years. In the circumstances, we are of the view that if the land was granted to Marappa on lease under 'Grow More Food Scheme' and thereafter it is confirmed to him, it cannot be considered as a land granted to him considering him as Scheduled Caste or a depressed person. In addition to that, appellants have not placed any material to show that the land in question was granted to Marappa under 'Grow More Food Scheme'. Appellants have only relied upon the RTC extracts to substantiate their contention that it is a granted land. But based on RTC entries, no Court can hold that the land granted to Marappas as he belongs to depressed class or Scheduled Caste in order to attract the provisions of PTCL Act." In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by respondent 1 in setting aside the order of respondent 2, appears to be just and proper and does not call for interference in this proceeding. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.