ORDER : These three Writ Petitions are filed by three different persons challenging the judgment/s passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, in three separate appeals filed by them under the provisions of Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’). 2. Admittedly, the subject matter of all these writ petitions is the very same property i.e., land bearing Sy. No.112 measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 25 guntas situate in Singasandra village, Begur hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. 3. W.P. No.3596/2012 is by Sri Thomas Ashok Issac, who is the appellant in Appeal No.SC.ST.(A).92/2007-08, and W.P. No.3590/2012 is by Smt. Anne Issac/Smt. Anne Isaac, the appellant in Appeal No.SC.ST.(A).93/2007-08, seeking quashing of the respective order of same date i.e., 07.01.2012 (Annexure ‘A’ to writ petitions) passed by the second respondent Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, wherein the order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure ‘B’ to writ petitions) passed by the third respondent Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru, in case No.K.S.C.S.T.126/05-06 has been confirmed. 4. W.P. No.1619/2013 is filed by Smt. Puttamma, respondent No.2 in Appeal No.SC.ST(A).89/2007-08 seeking to quash the judgment dated 27.04.2012 (Annexure ‘H’ to the writ petition) passed by the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, wherein the order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure ‘F’ to the writ petition) passed by the second respondent Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru, in case No.K.SC.ST.126/2005-06 has been set aside. 5. Smt. Puttamma, the petitioner in W.P. No.1619/2013, initiated the proceedings in case No.K.S.C:S.T.126:05-06 against Smt. Susheela Ramachandran (wife of respondent No.3(a) and the mother of respondent Nos.3(b) and 3(c) in W.P. No.1619/2013) before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division. Smt. Puttamma claiming herself to be the granddaughter of late Chenniga/Chinnaga/Channiga, the erstwhile owner of land bearing Sy. No.56 (new Sy. No.112) situate in Singasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 25 guntas. The said extent is referred to as 01 Acre 26 guntas in the registered sale deed dated 10.02.1944 (Annexure ‘C’ to W.P. No.3596/2012). According to Smt. Puttamma, the said land was granted in the name of Chenniga under darkhastand he had sold the same in favour of one Channarayappa, son of Sonnegowda, under registered sale deed dated 10.02.1944 and the said sale was in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. According to Smt. Puttamma, the said land was granted in the name of Chenniga under darkhastand he had sold the same in favour of one Channarayappa, son of Sonnegowda, under registered sale deed dated 10.02.1944 and the said sale was in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Hence, she sought for resumption of the said land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. The Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure ‘F’ to W.P. No.1619/2013), held that the sale made by Chenniga in favour of Channarayappa in respect of the land measuring 01 Acres 25 guntas in Sy. No.112 under registered sale deed dated 10.02.1944 and the subsequent sale transactions in respect of the said land were in violation of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act and accordingly, allowed the application filed by Smt. Puttamma by setting aside the said sale deed dated 10.02.1944 and the subsequent sale transactions and consequently, the said land was resumed to the Government and restored to the applicant – Smt. Puttamma under Section 5(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, was directed to transfer khata of the said land to the name of the applicant by deleting the name of the respondent therein – Smt. Susheela Ramachandran. 7. When the order dated 28.12.2007 is looked into, the Assistant Commissioner has not recorded any finding as to whether Smt. Puttamma is the granddaughter of late Chenniga/Chinniga. The order does not indicate that Smt. Puttamma had produced all the relevant documents to demonstrate that the aforesaid land was granted in favour of her grandfather, Chenniga. However, when the said order is closely perused, it is seen that there is inconsistency in the observations made by the Assistant Commissioner as in initial part of para No.4 of the judgment dated 28.12.2007, it is stated that the revenue documents such as index of lands and record of rights indicated that the said land was granted in favour of Chenniga under darkhast, however in the later part of the said para, it is stated that the said land was granted to the applicant – Smt.Puttamma prior to 04.08.1953. However, the fact remains that prior to 10.02.1944, the said land was in the hands of Chenniga/Chinniga. 8. However, the fact remains that prior to 10.02.1944, the said land was in the hands of Chenniga/Chinniga. 8. In the entire proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, there is no reference to the applicant Smt. Puttamma demonstrating that she is grantee of the land in question by virtue of the order either passed on 04.08.1953 or prior to that. According to Smt. Puttamma, she is the granddaughter of Chenniga, the original grantee. However, the Assistant Commissioner without ascertaining as to whether Smt.Puttamma was the grantee of the said land or in the alternative, she is the granddaughter of the original grantee, Chenniga and as to whether the land in question was granted in favour of Chenniga, proceeded to pass an order allowing the application. In the very same order, the Assistant Commissioner has recorded that the Tahasildar, Bengaluru City, had issued an endorsement dated 17.10.2007 to the effect that the original records pertaining to the grant of land in Sy. No.112 were not available. When the entire thing was as fishy as it could be seen, the Assistant Commissioner having shouldered the responsibility of giving justice to Smt.Puttamma in spite of there being no case made out by her for resumption and restitution of the land in her favour, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 in case No.K.S.C:S.T.126:05-06. 9. It is also interesting to note that in the aforesaid application, the respondent is shown as one Smt. Susheela Ramachandran said to be in possession of the land in question. It is to the said person notice appears to have been sent. The records would disclose that Smt. Susheela Ramachandran died on 28.03.1987 and she was not alive as on the date (28.12.2007) when the Assistant Commissioner passed the said order. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner is the subject matter of three appeals in case Nos. SC.ST.(A).89/2007-08, SC.ST.(A).92/2007-08 and SC.ST.(A).93/2007-08 filed by Sri S. Jayaraman/S. Jayaram (respondent No.6 in W.P. Nos.3590/2012 and 3596/2012), Sri Thomas Ashok Issac and Smt. Anne Isaac respectively before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District. 10. It is necessary to take the appeal, which is filed by Sri S. Jayaraman in case No.SC.ST(A).89/2007-08, for consideration at the first instance. The said Jayaraman filed the aforesaid appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, bringing to his notice that the land bearing Sy. No.112 (new Sy. 10. It is necessary to take the appeal, which is filed by Sri S. Jayaraman in case No.SC.ST(A).89/2007-08, for consideration at the first instance. The said Jayaraman filed the aforesaid appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, bringing to his notice that the land bearing Sy. No.112 (new Sy. No.212) measuring 01 Acre 25 guntas was purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 26.08.1987 (Annexure ‘E’ to W.P. Nos.3590 and 3596 of 2012) from the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Susheela Ramachandran, namely, her husband, Sri R. Ramachandran and her two children, Smt. Aparna, aged about 21 years, and Sri R. Atmaram, a minor aged 15 years, represented by his father, R. Ramachandran. It is seen that the appellant – S. Jayaraman had acquired title to the said land as on 26.08.1987 and thereafter, he got the said land converted from agricultural to nonagricultural purpose vide official memorandum bearing No.B.Dis.ALN.SR(S)461/9192 dated 18.05.1992 and formed a layout and sold sites to various persons under different sale deeds. 11. The said appeal filed by Sri S. Jayaraman was taken up for consideration by the Deputy Commissioner, Sri M.K. Aiyappa, who in his judgment dated 27.04.2012, observed that: the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, were held against a dead person i.e., Smt. Susheela Ramachandran and that her legal representatives were not brought on record; the Assistant Commissioner merely on the basis of the entries in the index of lands and record of rights had come to the conclusion that the land in Sy. No.112 measuring 01 Acre 25 guntas was a ‘granted land’ prior to 1944 even though Tahasildar, Bangalore South Taluk, had issued endorsement to the effect that the original grant records in respect of the land in question were not available. 12. The said judgment passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 27.04.2012 appears to be correct for the reason that in the proceedings (case No.KSC:S.T.126:05-06) before the Assistant Commissioner, the applicant, Smt. Puttamma, neither produced the alleged grant certificate to show that she was granted the land in question either by order dated 04.08.1953 or prior to that it was granted to Chenniga nor she was able to demonstrate that she is the granddaughter of Chenniga. In fact, it is also observed by the Deputy Commissioner that there was nothing on record produced by Smt. Puttamma to show that she is the granddaughter of Chenniga except the caste certificate produced by her stating that she belongs to oppressed class of ‘Scheduled Caste’. The Deputy Commissioner in his judgment has discussed at length the conversion order, which was issued in the name of Sri S.Jayaraman, and various other aspects including the fact that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that the land in question was a ‘granted land’ in favour of Chenniga and accordingly, allowed the appeal filed by Sri S. Jayaraman. 13. It is the said judgment dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sri M.K. Aiyappa, in SC.ST.(A).89/2007-08, which is impugned in W.P. No.1619/2013 preferred by Smt. Puttamma. 14. In the meanwhile, it is seen that the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007 passed in case No.K.S.C:S.T No.126/2005-06 was the subject matter of two appeals i.e., one preferred by Smt. Anne Isaac in Appeal No.SC.ST.(A)93/2007-08 and another by Sri Thomas Ashok Issac in Appeal No.SC.ST(A)92/2007-08. Admittedly, Smt. Anne Isaac purchased site Nos.13 and 14 and Sri Thomas Ashok Isaac purchased site Nos.15 and 16 in the layout formed by Sri S. Jayaraman in the land bearing Sy. No.112 after getting the same converted from agricultural to nonagricultural purpose. Two separate registered sale deeds of even date i.e. 20.03.1995 are produced as respective Annexure ‘G’ to W.P. Nos.3590/2012 and 3596/2012. 15. It is interesting to note that the appeals (SC.ST.(A).92/2007-08 and SC.ST.(A).93/2007-08) were taken up for consideration by the very same person, Sri M.K. Aiyappa, Deputy Commissioner, on 07.01.2012 i.e., a little more than four months prior to the judgment dated 27.04.2012 passed in the appeal No.SC.ST.(A).89/2007-08, filed by Sri S. Jayaraman. Though the Appellate Authority was the same and the order impugned in the said appeals i.e., order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007 was same, it is seen from two separate judgments passed by Deputy Commissioner Mr. Though the Appellate Authority was the same and the order impugned in the said appeals i.e., order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007 was same, it is seen from two separate judgments passed by Deputy Commissioner Mr. M.K. Aiyappa on same day i.e., 07.01.2012 that he had discussed these two appeals in a very casual manner and dismissed both the appeals filed by Sri Thomas Ashok Issac and Smt. Anne Isaac, the purchasers of certain sites in the layout formed by Sri S. Jayaraman and consequently, confirming the restoration of the land in favour of Smt. Puttamma (respondent No.1 in the said appeals) under Section 5(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. It is rather surprising to note as to how an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner while dealing with the very same order of the Assistant Commissioner, which was the subject matter of three different appeals, could have taken two different opinions to suit the requirements of the respective parties in the said appeals. It speaks volume about the conduct of the said Deputy Commissioner and the manner in which these appeals have been dealt with. 16. When it comes to the appeal in No. SC. ST (A).89/2007-08 filed by Sri S. Jayaraman, the land owner, who was challenging the resumption order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007, the Deputy Commissioner had much time available with him to go through every single document placed before him including the sale deed dated 10.02.1944 (mentioned as 07.02.1944 at some places in the impugned judgments of the Deputy Commissioner) and come to the conclusion that the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007 was liable to be set aside on the preliminary ground that the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner were held against a dead person i.e., Smt. Susheela Ramachandran, whose legal heirs were not brought on record. The Deputy Commissioner further observed that the second respondent therein – Smt. Puttamma had not furnished the relevant documents to show the actual date of grant of land, order number, the conditions under which the land in question was granted etc. and the Assistant Commissioner merely on the basis of the entries in the revenue records such as index of lands and record of rights had opined that the land in Sy. and the Assistant Commissioner merely on the basis of the entries in the revenue records such as index of lands and record of rights had opined that the land in Sy. No.112 measuring 01 Acre 25 guntas was a ‘granted land’ prior to 1944 despite the report of the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, that the original grant records were not available in respect of the land in question. The said aspects were discussed in detail in the judgment dated 27.04.2012 passed in appeal No.SC.ST(A)89/2007-08. However, while giving reasons for setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007 though the Deputy Commissioner had given some absurd reason, the order justifiably has exposed the conduct of both Smt. Puttamma as well as that of Assistant Commissioner in the said proceedings. However, the very same honesty was not shown by the Deputy Commissioner, M.K. Aiyappa, at the time when he decided the appeals SC.ST.(A)92/2007-08 and SC.ST.(A)93/2007-08 filed by Shri Thomas Ashok Issac and Smt. Anne Isaac, purchasers of two sites each in the layout formed by Sri S. Jayaraman in the large extent of the very same land (Sy. No.112 measuring 01 Acre 25 guntas). Deputy Commissioner has come to a different conclusion other than the one arrived at by him in appeal No.SC.ST.(A).89/2007-08 and erred in dismissing the said two appeals by confirming the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007, which order was passed on the basis of revenue documents and in the absence of original records relating to the grant of land. 17. Perusal of the material on record discloses that the applicant – Smt. Puttamma had placed unscrupulous claim before the competent authorities, who have taken the responsibility of saving the oppressed class without even verifying the factual position and ascertaining as to whether the applicant – Smt. Puttamma had any semblance of right to seek the prayer sought in the application filed by her and proceeded to entertain the said application for the reasons best known to them, which this Court is unable to fathom out from the order/judgment (dated 28.12.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in case No.K.S.C:S.T.126:05-06 and two separate judgments dated 07.01.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal Nos.SC.ST.(A).92/2007-08 and SC.ST.(A).93/2007-08) passed by them. 18. 18. Be that as it may, as against the respective judgment dated 07.01.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner in the appeals filed by Anne Issac/Anne Isaac and Thomas Ashok Issac, two writ petitions are filed in W.P. No.3590/2012 and W.P. No.3596/2012. W.P. No.1619/2013 is by Smt. Puttamma impugning the judgment dated 27.04.2012 passed in appeal No.SC.ST(A):89/2007-08. Since all these three petitions pertain to the very same order of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner in case No.K.S.C.S.T.126/2005-06 pertaining to the land bearing Sy. No.112 measuring 01 Acre 25 guntas/26 guntas, they are taken up for consideration together. 19. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.1619/2013 – Smt. Puttamma, the applicant in case No.K.S.C:S.T.126/05-06 before the Assistant Commissioner, learned counsel for the respective petitioner in W.P. Nos.3590/2012 and 3596/2012, who are purchasers of certain sites formed in the converted land bearing Sy. No.112. I have also heard learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P. Nos.3590/2012 and 3596/2012 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P. No.1619/2013, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P. Nos.3590 and 3596 of 2012, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P. No.1619/2013 Sri S. Jayaraman, who formed the layout as well as the sites in the converted land bearing Sy. No.112. The said Sri S. Jayaraman is arrayed as respondent No.6 in both W.P. Nos.3590/2012 and 3596/2012. Though he was served with notice in W.P. No.3596/2012, he has remained unrepresented. 20. In W.P. No.3590/2012, notice taken out to respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(c) and 6 by way of paper publication has been accepted vide order dated 30.10.2012. In W.P. No.3596/2012, notice taken out to respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(c) by way of paper publication was accepted vide order dated 31.10.2012. Similarly, in W.P. No.1619/2013, service of notice taken out to respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(c) by way of paper publication was held sufficient by order dated 08.12.2014. Perusal of the order sheets maintained in the writ petitions disclose that interim stay was granted in W.P. Nos.3590/2012 and 3596/2012 vide order dated 20.04.2012 and 08.03.2012 respectively. 21. In W.P. No.1619/2013, respondent Nos.5 and 6 were impleaded vide order dated 02.01.2014 passed on I.A. No.1/2013. Perusal of the order sheets maintained in the writ petitions disclose that interim stay was granted in W.P. Nos.3590/2012 and 3596/2012 vide order dated 20.04.2012 and 08.03.2012 respectively. 21. In W.P. No.1619/2013, respondent Nos.5 and 6 were impleaded vide order dated 02.01.2014 passed on I.A. No.1/2013. It is stated that Sri V.K. Abraham, the father of respondent No.5 had purchased site Nos.10, 11 and 12 measuring 90 feet x 40 feet in total on 05.03.1993 and respondent No.6 had purchased a residential site bearing No.5 measuring 1200 Sq. feet. Both the father of respondent No.5, Sri V.K. Abraham, and respondent No.6 are stated to have constructed residential houses over the said sites. Sri V.K. Abraham is stated to have gifted away his property in favour of his son. 22. It is evident from the records that it is a classic case of fraud, cheating and involving manipulation of records. The competent authorities passing of perverse orders for extraneous reasons is writ large in two separate judgments dated 07.01.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal Nos.SC.ST.(A).92/2007-08 and SC.ST.(A).93/2007-08. 23. Now coming to the order dated 28.12.2007 passed in case No. K.S.C.S.T No.126/2005-06, the Assistant Commissioner, who is Author of the said order and who is said to be responsible officer to implement the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, has conducted the said proceedings in a mechanical manner without even appreciating as to whether the applicant – Smt.Puttamma had any semblance of right to seek resumption of the land in question (land measuring 01 Acre 25 guntas in Sy. No.112). When the said order is looked into, it is clearly seen that the applicant, Smt. Puttamma, though claimed that she is a grantee, she did not produce the grant certificate issued in her favour. In addition to that, she also claimed that the said land was originally granted in favour of her grandfather, Channiga/Chenniga, but she did not furnish the details such as, the actual date of grant order, the conditions under which the land was granted etc., and on the contrary, an endorsement was issued by the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, indicating that the original grant records in respect of the land in question were not available. The applicant Smt. Puttamma did not produce any document to show that she was the granddaughter of Channiga/Chinniga, the original grantee, and merely on the basis of the averments made in the application filed by her and even without ascertaining as to who was in possession of the land in question as on the date of passing of the order (28.12.2007) and in whose name the revenue records stood as on that date, he had ordered issuance of notice to a dead person and proceeded to pass an order of resumption without application of mind. The said order of resumption dated 28.12.2007 was challenged by three persons as stated supra. 24. In the subsequent appeal in No. SC.ST.(A).89/2007-08 which is filed by the owner, Sri S. Jayaraman, the Deputy Commissioner, Sri M.K. Aiyappa, has discussed in detail the flow of title in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.112 (new Sy. No.212) measuring 01 Acre 25 guntas including the facts that the said land was granted in favour of Channiga/Chenniga prior to 1944; Channiga and his sons, Muniyella and Chinnappa, had sold the said land in favour of Sri B.C. Ramaiah under registered sale deed dated 07.02.1944/10.02.1944; subsequently, B.C. Ramaiah sold the said land in favour of Smt. Susheela Ramachandran under registered sale deed dated 02.03.1981. After the death of the said Susheela Ramachandran (died intestate on 29.08.1982), her husband and children had sold the said land in favour of the applicant Sri S. Jayaraman under registered sale deed dated 26.08.1987. The Deputy Commissioner also noted in his order that the land was converted from agricultural to nonagricultural purpose in the year 1992 and further observed that the 2nd respondent therein – Smt. Puttamma had claimed for restoration of the land in question during the year 2005-06 i.e., after a lapse of more than 59 years from the date of first alienation of the land and after 26 years from 01.01.1979, the date on which the PTCL Act came into force. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner for the reasons discussed in his judgment dated 27.04.2012, set aside the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner for the reasons discussed in his judgment dated 27.04.2012, set aside the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007. However, as discussed supra, before passing a detailed judgment on 27.04.2012, he also passed two absurd judgments of even date i.e., 07.01.2012 in two appeals, namely, SC.ST.(A) 92/2007-08 and SC.ST.(A) 93/2007-08, which were filed by two persons, Sri Thomas Ashok Issac and Smt. Anne Isaac, who had purchased certain sites in the layout formed by Sri S.Jayaraman in the aforesaid land. When the very same set of facts as that of in appeal No.SC.ST.(A).89/2007-08 were placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Sri Aiyappa, it is not understandable as to how he could have decided the appeals (SC.ST.(A).92/2007-08 and SC.ST.(A).93/2007-08) in the manner in which he has decided the same as stated supra. This clearly shows that all is not well in the proceedings before the Authorities particularly when it comes to the proceedings under the PTCL Act. The Authorities for whatever reasons best known to them pretend as though they are saviours of the oppressed class and have the responsibility of protecting the so-called interest of persons belonging to oppressed class and when they fall short of establishing their right, the Authorities on their own fill up all the lacunas in the petitions/appeals for the reasons best known to them in the guise of upholding the statutory provisions and pass orders detriment to the interest of common people, who are also equally poor and helpless in the hands of those officials and injustice is done in a rampant manner for whatever reasons best known to them. 25. In the fact situation, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court would observe that Smt. Puttamma, the petitioner in W.P. No.1619/2013, has not made out a case to demonstrate that she is the granddaughter of Chenniga/Chinniga and that her grandfather, Chenniga was granted land measuring 01 Acre 25 guntas in Sy. No.112 situate in Singasandra village, Begur Hobli, and in the alternative, she has also not established that she is the grantee of the very same land either by virtue of the order dated 04/08/1953 or any order prior to that. No.112 situate in Singasandra village, Begur Hobli, and in the alternative, she has also not established that she is the grantee of the very same land either by virtue of the order dated 04/08/1953 or any order prior to that. Therefore, this Court hold that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007 in case No.K.S.C:ST:126:05-06 is without any basis, bereft of merits and passed without considering the pleadings and averments made in the application filed by Smt. Puttamma and the judgment dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.SC.ST(A).89/2007-08 setting aside the said order dated 28.12.2007 is just and proper and the same is required to be confirmed. While doing so, this Court would also observe that the very same officer for the reasons best known to him has passed two separate absurd and meaningless judgments on 07.01.2012 on the very same subject in the other two appeals filed by Sri Thomas Ashok Isaac and Smt. Anne Issac. 26. Hence, W.P. No.1619/2013 is dismissed. The order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure ‘F’ to the writ petition) passed by Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru, in case No.K.S.C:ST.126/2005-06 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the judgment dated 27.04.2012 (Annexure ‘H’ to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in appeal No.SC.ST(A).89/2007-08 setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.12.2007 is hereby confirmed. 27. Accordingly, W.P. Nos.3590/2012 and 3596/2012 are allowed. The order of resumption dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure ‘B’ in both the petitions) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru, in case No.KSC.ST.126/05-06 is set aside. The respective judgment dated 07.01.2012 (Annexure ‘A’ in both the writ petitions) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, in Appeal Nos. SC. ST.(A)92/2007-08 and SC.ST.(A).93/2007-08 are hereby set aside.