ORDER : The purchaser of land bearing Sy.No.71 of Tobarahalli village, Varthur Hobli, erstwhile Bangalore South Taluk and presently in Bangalore East Taluk has come up in W.P.No.51426/2012 impugning the concurrent finding of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, second and first respondents in said writ petition in holding that the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL Act’ for short). 2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under: The land bearing Sy.No.71 of Tobarahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now Bangalore East Taluk was sold in favour of one Venkatappa for an upset price of Rs.100/- as per Official Memorandum dated 5.4.1955, which is at Annexure-B. It is stated that on an application, said upset price was reduced from Rs.100/- to Rs.25/- per acre. Thereafter, the said amount was ordered to be paid in three installments. It is stated that Venkatappa was given Grant Certificate with reference to an extent of 3 acres of land in aforesaid Sy.No.71 under aforesaid Official Memorandum. The case of respondents 3 to 5, who are the legal representatives of said Venkatappa is that Venkatappa sold said property in favour of one Sanjeevappa, subsequently it has changed hands and presently, it is under the ownership, cultivation and enjoyment of petitioner herein. 3. It is seen that after the death of Venkatappa, his legal representatives initiated proceedings under the provisions of PTCL Act seeking restoration of the land on the ground that there is violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. The said proceedings was initiated in KSC/ST.PTCL.107/2005-2006 before the Assistant Commissioner – second respondent herein, which came to be allowed by order dated 7.12.2007. The petitioner herein, who was respondent in said proceedings took up the same in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner – first respondent herein in SC.ST(A).69/2007-2008, wherein the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties confirmed the order of Assistant Commissioner and confirmed the restoration of land by his order dated 22.9.2012. The petitioner herein, who was respondent in said proceedings took up the same in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner – first respondent herein in SC.ST(A).69/2007-2008, wherein the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties confirmed the order of Assistant Commissioner and confirmed the restoration of land by his order dated 22.9.2012. However, in the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner there is one more dimension given to the litigation in, in addition to respondent Nos.3 to 5 seeking restoration, they were joined by another person i.e., respondent No.6 and there was inter se dispute between them with reference to their right to seek restoration, which was also considered by the Deputy Commissioner. However, the petitioner herein is not concerned with the said observation with reference to right of respondent Nos.3 to 6 and his primary concern is with reference to restoration which is ordered against him, which he has challenged in this writ petition. It is seen that with reference to the observation made by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the claim and counter claim seeking restoration by respondent Nos.3 to 6 is concerned, another writ petition is filed by respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P.Nos.8707/2013 and 9259-9260/2013. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-purchaser in WP.No.51426/2012, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8707/2013 and 9259-9260/2013 and the learned Government Advocate, who is appearing for Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner in these two proceedings. Perused the material available on record as well as the ordere impugned. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that the grant in favour of Venkatappa is not a free grant, on the contrary, it is for an upset price. The Apex Court in the matter of B.K. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1438 , has dealt with a fact situation like this, where the grant is pursuant to an upset price or auction price, the same is not considered as a grant under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, on the contrary, it is held as a regular sale in their favour and therefore, held that restriction which is envisaged in the PTCL Act would not get extended to the grant of similar nature. While observing that the Apex Court has also held that to understand the nature of grant, the contents of Grant Certificate will have to be read and the Courts should not go by the word Grant Certificate used in the document where the occupancy right is conferred on the beneficiary. The relevant portion which deals with aforesaid discussion is culled out as under: “11. From the materials, now we have to see whether the land purchased by Motappa was a “granted land” as claimed by the appellant herein and one M. Gopal or purchased by public auction for a price as claimed by contesting respondents 4 and 5 herein ? In order to understand whether the land in question was a “granted land” or land purchased for a price at a public auction”, it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to look into the relevant records and decide the same. In view of the controvers in question, we verified the document and the orders passed by the Assistant and the Deputy Commissioner and the factual findings recorded by them. It reveals that the land in question was granted in 1948 and the certificate of Grant/Saguvali Chit which was filed as Annexure R1 before the High Court (Annexure P3 before us) shows the same was sold in public auction for a price. In other words, the land was purchased by Motappa at a public auction and it was not a “granted land” within the meaning of Rule 43(8) of the Rules. It was contended that the finding recorded by both the authorities is essentially a factual finding based on the relevant materials, and the same cannot be interfered with by the writ Court. 12. The document in question which is field as Annexure P3, has been styled or titled as “Certificate of Grant”. In order to know the real nature of the document, one has to look into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals in the deed, the conduct of the parties and the evidence on record. In order to know the real nature of the document, one has to look into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals in the deed, the conduct of the parties and the evidence on record. It is settled law that the question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out the intention of the executant, firstly from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into to the extent permissible –the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of the real nature of transaction. Reference in this regard can be made to the following cases i.e. Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 573 ; Subbegowda (Dead) by LR. V. Thimmegowda (Dead) by LRs (2004) 9 SCC 734 and Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad & Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 432. 13. The above principles make it clear that we have to see terms and conditions and recitals in the document and not the title alone. Though the document, according to the appellant, “Certificate of Grant” perusal of the clauses therein, clearly shows that the land was sold on 04.03.1948 in a public auction and Motappa purchased the same for a price of Rs.408.12. In additional to the recitals, the “darkhast registered extract” produced as Annexure “C” before the High Court also shows that the land in question was sold for a “price”. Form I also indicates that the land in question was purchased and what was paid by the purchaser under the said document was the purchase price. In the light of the principles mentioned above and the terms and conditions in the recital clearly show that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price. Merely because the document has been styled or titled as “Certificate of Grant”, it cannot be constructed that the land was a “granted land” attracting the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Merely because the document has been styled or titled as “Certificate of Grant”, it cannot be constructed that the land was a “granted land” attracting the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Assistant and the Deputy Commissioner, the authorized authorities under the Act and Rules, on verification of the contents of the document coupled with Revenue extract rightly concluded that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price even in the year 1948.” 5. On going through the portion of judgment culled out as above, it is clearly seen that the facts of present case are similar to the one in aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the law laid down by the Apex Court in said judgment would apply to the case on hand on all fours. In the light of aforesaid observations, this Court cannot accept the grant in favour of Venkatappa and from whom respondents 3 to 6 are claiming title to the property are not entitled to seek restoration of the same. Hence, the orders impugned passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings before them are required to be quashed and the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is required to be confirmed. 6. Now coming to the writ petitions in WP.Nos.8707/2013 and 9259-9260/2013 are concerned, they are by respondent Nos.3 to 5 exclusively with reference to their respective right to seek restoration of aforesaid 3 acres of land which was sold by Venkatappa in favour of petitioner herein, against the applicant who got impleaded himself in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, who is fourth respondent in these writ petitions and sixth respondent in WP.No.51426/2012. However, in view of the sale deed executed by Venkatappa in favour of the predecessor in title of petitioner in WP.No.51426/2012 being confirmed, the right of respondents 3 to 6 in WP.No.51426/2012 as recognized by the Deputy Commissioner being quashed, nothing survives for consideration in these writ petitions, which are basically with reference to right of sharing the aforesaid extent of 3 acres of land in the event of same being restored to them. Accordingly, these writ petitions have become infructuous. 7. In the result, WP.No.51426/2012 is allowed. Accordingly, these writ petitions have become infructuous. 7. In the result, WP.No.51426/2012 is allowed. The order dated 7.12.2007 in KSC.ST.107/2005-2006 passed by Assistant Commissioner and the order dated 22.9.2012 in SC.ST(A).69/2007-2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner are quashed and the sale deed executed by Venkatappa in favour of the predecessor in title of petitioner is confirmed. 8. So far as W.P.Nos.8707/2013 and 9259-9260/2013 are dismissed as they have become infructuous in the light of WP.No.51426/2012 being allowed.