ORDER : 1. Learned Counsel Mr. Praveen Kumar.G.R. has appeared for the petitioner. He has kept the petitioner present. Memo filed by him seeking dispensation of notice to respondents 2 to 4 stating that no relief is sought against them is placed on record. Service of notice on respondents 2 to 4 is dispensed with. 2. Learned Counsel Mr. Vijaykumar Patil is directed to take notice for respondent no.5 – Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, ‘KIADB’). Indeed, he has appeared in the review petition which has been argued and allowed by order dated 12.09.2017. 3. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 & 6. 4. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. His father Durgappa was granted 2 acres of land comprised in Sy. No.177-Block-8 (177/P-8) situated at Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk. Grant was made on 18.05.1955. Out of two acres of land, father of petitioner sold one acre in favour of respondent no.2 and remaining one acre was sold in favour of respondents 3 and 4 vide sale deeds dated 25.04.1959 and 02.01.1961, respectively. 5. After coming into force of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘PTCL Act’), a petition in No.K.SC.ST.32/2009-10 was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North SubDivision seeking resumption of land to the Government and restoration of the same to the grantee contending inter alia that alienation made by his father was in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. 6. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 17.06.2011 regarding the genuineness of the grant in favour of the grantee. Original grant records were made available before him. In the light of the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’), by the competent authority regarding genuineness of the grant, the Assistant Commissioner found that any decision taken in that regard without examining the original grant records would not be legally just and proper and therefore, he had to await the decision of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, who had initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act regarding genuineness or otherwise of the entries made in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. He held that once a decision was rendered by the Special Deputy Commissioner, parties would be at liberty to pursue the matter in accordance with law. 7. Thus, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner did not record any finding either in favour of petitioner or against him. The Assistant Commissioner only deferred the proceedings initiated under Section 5 of the PTCL Act awaiting the order to be passed in the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Land Revenue Act initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner. 8. Aggrieved by this order, present petitioner i.e., legal representative of the grantee filed an appeal No.SC.ST.(A) 79/2011-12 before the Special Deputy Commissioner. 9. It transpires that the land in question was acquired for the benefit of the KIADB and the same was no longer available for restoration in favour of the grantee or his legal representative. Interest of the grantee was confined to the compensation amount payable for the acquisition of the land. Therefore, the grantee and owner of the land appeared to have reached a settlement. Hence, joint memo and memo for withdrawal was filed before the Special Deputy Commissioner. Memo for withdrawal filed before the Special Deputy Commissioner has been produced along with the writ petition, which reads as under: “MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL The above name appellant/petitioner most humbly submits that this Hon’ble Court kindly permit the appellant/petitioner to withdraw the case as not pressed that the petitioner and the respondents settle the matter out of court, by allowing this memo, in the interest of justice.” 10. Taking the memo on record, the Special Deputy Commissioner passed the order impugned in this writ petition. By the said order, the Special Deputy Commissioner found that available records disclosed that the grant was genuine and that indeed 11 persons had been granted the land as was evident from the Saguvali chit. Entries in the saguvali chit demonstrated that the land in question was granted free of cost subject to non-alienation condition of 20 years. But, contrary to the condition of non-alienation, the land was alienated by way of registered sale deeds dated 25.04.1959 and 02.01.1961. The Special Deputy Commissioner, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. But, contrary to the condition of non-alienation, the land was alienated by way of registered sale deeds dated 25.04.1959 and 02.01.1961. The Special Deputy Commissioner, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. The Special Deputy Commissioner has further found that even in the absence of original grant records, if the available contemporaneous documents such as saguvali chit and other materials were taken into consideration, as held in the case of MALLIKARJUNAPPA.G.K. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE ( 2005 (2) KAR.L.J. 205 ), there was no room for doubt regarding the valid grant made in favour of Durgappa – father of petitioner. 11. Placing reliance on the decision, in the case of RANGAPPA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR [2002 (4) KCCR SN 400], the Special Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that alienation of land in question was in violation of grant. However, the Special Deputy Commissioner has taken exception to the fact that petitioner intended to withdraw the appeal before him on the ground that even if grantee were to declare that he was not interested in getting back the land sold by him, such declaration would not validate the sale nor would it prevent the Government from resuming the land. In this connection, referring to the judgment in the case of SMT. SEVERINE D’SOUZA VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE AND OTHERS [ 1996(7) KAR.L.J. 522 A], the Special Deputy Commissioner has held that as the petitioner before him was not interested in getting back the land and as there was violation of grant conditions, the land had to be forfeited to the State Government. Thus, while setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Special Deputy Commissioner has ordered for forfeiture of the land to the State Government. 12. This order has been challenged before this Court in this writ petition. 13. Heard the learned Counsel for all the parties. 14. The question that falls for consideration is, whether the Deputy Commissioner was right and justified in recording a finding that the grantee was not interested in getting back the land in question, and therefore, the land had to be resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances, and hence, the claimant was not entitled for any compensation in respect of the land in question which was acquired by the KIADB? 15. 15. So far as the findings of the Deputy Commissioner that the land was a granted land and that the same was sold by the grantee within the non-alienation period and hence, the sale made was illegal entailing resumption and restoration of the land are concerned, there is no challenge by anybody. The said finding has attained finality. 16. The only question is, whether the writ petitioner – grantee could be said to have expressed his disinclination in getting back the land sold by him by filing a memo along with his vendors seeking permission to withdraw the appeal stating that they had settled the matter outside the court. 17. As already pointed out above, the Assistant Commissioner did not hold that the land was not a granted land and that there was no violation of the condition of grant. The application filed for restoration of the land by the grantee was not dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner specifically made it clear that consideration of the said question was being deferred because there was a proceeding initiated by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act, to examine the genuineness or otherwise of the entries in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. In the opinion of the Assistant Commissioner, the very root of the issue as to whether the land in Sy. No.177 of Bagalur village was a granted land or not was seized by the Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Act, and unless the said issue was resolved, the claim of the grantee and the defence put up by the respondents could not be considered. In such circumstances, having due regard to the fact that the land was no longer available for restoration to the grantee having been acquired by the KIADB, the grantee and the purchaser from him resolved to settle the dispute regarding payment of compensation by the KIADB and filed a joint memo before the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the appeal filed as not pressed in view of the settlement reached by them. 18. 18. This conduct on the part of the grantee cannot be regarded as expressing disinclination on his part to seek remedy under the provisions of the PTCL Act for restoration of the land nor can it be regarded as grantee having given up his rights over the land in favour of the purchasers. As the Assistant Commissioner had not passed any adverse order against the grantee, even if the appeal filed by the grantee had been dismissed as not pressed or withdrawn, it would not have extinguished the right of the grantee to pursue his application. 19. The joint memo does not say that the grantee had given up his rights in favour of the purchaser. Therefore, inference drawn by the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that by filing the joint memo, the grantee had given up his rights and had declared his disinclination for restoration of the land is wholly unsustainable. Such inference is not permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. It has to be noticed that the grantee was all along fighting for his rights. Though he pressed for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner deferred consideration of the application awaiting orders from the Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Act. The grantee was not satisfied with this order of the Assistant Commissioner, Therefore, he filed the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner insisting that the land shall be restored to him as the sale was in contravention of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner having rightly come to the conclusion that the sale was indeed in violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, has completely erred in making a wrong inference attributing disinclination and disinterest to the grantee in getting the land restored in his favour. Hence, this portion of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner making such unwarranted inference against the grantee and consequently declaring that the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances and free from the rights of the grantee deserves to be set aside. The order of the Deputy Commissioner has to be modified to the above extent. 21. This writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner only in so far as it purports to direct forfeiture of the land to the State Government is set aside. The order of the Deputy Commissioner has to be modified to the above extent. 21. This writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner only in so far as it purports to direct forfeiture of the land to the State Government is set aside. In all other respects, the order of Deputy Commissioner is confirmed. It is made clear that as the Deputy Commissioner has found that the grant was genuine and that the alienations by the father of the petitioner were against the provisions contained in Section 4(1) of PTCL Act, petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the Act for resumption and restoration. However, as the land has been acquired by the KIADB, petitioner shall be entitled for payment of compensation in respect of the acquired portion of the land in question. In case, the land is found not acquired, the same has to be restored back to the petitioner/legal representative of the original grantee.