ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub Division, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking resumption and restoration of the land in terms of the provisions contained under The Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, SCST (PTCL) Act). 2. Facts involved in the case, briefly stated are that four acres of land comprised in Sy.No.202 of Dogglapura village of Tarikere Taluk was granted in favour of father of petitioner by name Aadiyappa on 30.06.1957. He belonged to Scheduled caste. Aadiyappa sold the land in question on 10.04.1974 in favour of one T Sudhakar. Subsequently, Aadiyappa repurchased the land from T Sudhakar on 20.06.1977. 3. Out of the said 4 acres Two acres of land comprised in the said survey number was sold by Aadiyappa along with his sons to Virupakshappa and the remaining 2 acres was sold to one Maheswarappa on the very same day by executing registered sale deeds. 4. During his lifetime Aadiyappa filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere seeking restoration of the land contending interalia that the sale made by him was in violation of the provisions of the SC ST (PTCL) Act, inasmuch as without obtaining prior permission from the State Government the sale had been effected. On 16.11.1995 respondent No.3 the Assistant Commissioner issued an endorsement informing the petitioner that the transaction pertaining to the land in question did not come under the preview of provisions of SCST PTCL Act. Petitioners again persuaded the authorities to take up the application and to consider the request for restoration. After hearing both parties, on 31.01.2014 the Assistant Commissioner passed an order rejecting the application filed seeking restoration. This order is produced at Annexure ‘N’. This order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner. 5. The Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter to the third respondent directing him to examine if really there was any sale transaction that was effected on 10.04.1974 followed by another transaction dated 20.06.1977. After remand petitioner produced before the Assistant Commissioner document issued by the Sub Registrar showing that there was no sale transaction registered in respect of Sy.No.202 between 1970 to 1980. 6. After remand petitioner produced before the Assistant Commissioner document issued by the Sub Registrar showing that there was no sale transaction registered in respect of Sy.No.202 between 1970 to 1980. 6. The Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 15.04.2016 found that provisions of the Act were not violated as the first sale had been made in the year 1974, after the non alienation period of 15 years. When this was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there was indeed a sale deed dated 10.04.1974 which was executed by the father of petitioner in favour of one T Sudhakar, as was evident from the documents secured from the concerned Sub Registrar. The Deputy Commissioner has held that first sale deed by the father of the petitioner was effected after expiry of 15 years non alienation period from the date of grant and therefore there was no violation of any conditions of grant or the relevant rules in existence at that time regarding non alienation. He has further found that assertion made by the applicant/grantee stating that there was no sale executed on 10.04.1974 was false and baseless. 7. In so far as the contention urged that without prior permission the said sale deed dated 10.04.1974 could not have been executed, the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that prior permission was not required for the first sale as the same had taken place prior to the Act came into force. The other fact which has been adverted to and considered by the Deputy Commissioner is that though father of petitioner repurchased the property in the year 1977 and subsequently sold the same again on 4.12.1995 the said sale did not fall within the ambit of sub clause (2) of Section 4 because the said sale was not by a grantee belonging to the Scheduled Caste, but from a person who had purchased it in the year 1977. If incidentally the person who sold the property belonged to scheduled caste that would not, in any manner, affect the sale transaction. That is how the appeal filed was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no sale executed by the father of petitioner on 10.04.1974. This contention cannot be accepted. That is how the appeal filed was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no sale executed by the father of petitioner on 10.04.1974. This contention cannot be accepted. The Deputy Commissioner has recorded a specific finding after securing information from the concerned Sub Registrar that father of petitioner sold the land on 10.04.1974 by executing a registered sale deed bearing No. SR 1056/1974-75 in favour of one T Sudhakar. In the light of such finding of fact arrived at by the Deputy commissioner based on relevant documents, that too official documents placed before him by the jurisdictional Sub Registrar, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that their father did not execute any registered sale deed on 10.04.1974. This assertion of the petitioner only shows his conduct that he is coming up with a false and baseless assertion to somehow take undue advantage of the provisions of the Act. 9. It cannot be disputed that first sale dated 10.04.1974 was made after 15 years from the date of grant. Indeed, grant was in the year 1957. Therefore, first sale was beyond the period of non alienation prescribed. But, the contention of petitioner is that even if the father of petitioner had sold the property on 10.04.1974 as he had not taken prior permission of the State Government the said sale was bad in law as it was hit by sub clause (2) of Section 4. Section 4 reads as under: 4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands. (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or subsection (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. 10. (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. 10. Thus, it is clear that while sub clause 1 of Section 4 annuls and declares void the sale transactions of granted land made either before or after the commencement of the Act in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant or those which have been entered into in violation of sub clause 2. Sub clause 2 of Section 4 declares that after the commencement of the Act no person shall transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. It is, therefore, clear that so far as sub clause 1 of Section 4 is concerned, question of obtaining prior permission does not arise and is not conceived as per Section 4 (1) However, if the sale transaction of granted land is made in violation of non alienation condition or the rules, then the same could be annulled. 11. In so far as sale made after commencement of the Act irrespective of whether the sale is made after the period of non alienation, unless prior permission of the State Government is obtained the transfer will not convey any right in favour of the transferee. Hence the contention urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that even in cases where sale is made prior to the Act prior permission was necessary is untenable. In so far as the sale made by the father of the petitioner on 04.12.1995 having repurchased the property in the year 1977, the said sale does not fall within the ambit of sub-clause (2) of Section 4. This sale cannot be termed as alienation by the grantee. The grantee had validly sold the property after the completion of the alienation period by executing the sale deed dated 10.04.1974. Thereafter, in the year 1977, he repurchased the property. Hence, when he sold the property again on 04.12.1995, it cannot be termed as a sale by the grantee nor the land could be regarded as a granted land so as to attract the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act. Hence, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is fully justified. 12. Hence, when he sold the property again on 04.12.1995, it cannot be termed as a sale by the grantee nor the land could be regarded as a granted land so as to attract the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act. Hence, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is fully justified. 12. Therefore, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner being just and legal does not call for any interference. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.