ORDER : 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.05.2007 passed by third respondent and the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the second respondent vide Annexures A and B, respectively, whereby the authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the PTCL Act’) on the ground that the records are not available. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.6 measuring 2 acres situated at Singrahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devenahalli Taluk was originally granted in favour of the petitioner’s husband under the Land Grant Rules on 14.04.1977 with a condition of nonalienation for a period of 15 years. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The petitioner’s husband sold 1 acre of land to one Tatagatti Munishamappa under a registered sale ded dated 26.03.1994 and another 1 acre to the father of the fourth respondent by a registered sale deed dated 02.06.1997. The fourth respondent‘s father purchased 1 acre of land from said Tatagatti Munishamappa vide registered sale deed dated 29.05.1997. Thereafter, in the year 2003, petitioner filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of land in her favour. The Assistant Commissioner, by exercising powers under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, by order dated 18.05.2007 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the records are not available. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 26.04.2011 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Sri H.N.M.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land in dispute was originally granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner under Darkhast Rules on 14.04.1977. He further submits that it is very clear that the land in dispute is a granted land. Secondly, he submits that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community, i.e., Budaga Jangama. In support of his claim he has produced the Caste Certificate issued by the revenue authorities as per AnnexureC produced along with the rejoinder. He further submits that it is very clear that the land in dispute is a granted land. Secondly, he submits that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community, i.e., Budaga Jangama. In support of his claim he has produced the Caste Certificate issued by the revenue authorities as per AnnexureC produced along with the rejoinder. He further submits that the fourth respondent has not disputed the same before the authorities. Thirdly, he contended that the land was alienated contrary to the provisions of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Without considering all these aspects the authorities have rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, Sri K.Chandrashekara, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the land in dispute is not a granted land and the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, she belongs to Byragi community, which is neither Scheduled Caste nor Scheduled Tribe and the PTCL Act itself is not applicable. Therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that regarding the grant as well as the caste of the petitioner is concerned, the fourth respondent is raising the said contention for the first time before this Court. 6. Smt.Savitramma, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 submits on verifying the original records that the land in dispute is a granted land and it has been granted to the petitioner with a condition of nonalienation for a period of 15 years. The land has been sold in favour of the father of fourth respondent on 26.03.1994 by violating the provisions of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Hence, she sought for disposal of the writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 8. It is not in dispute that the land in question measuring 2 acres was originally granted in favour of one Govindamma, the petitioner herein under Darkhast Rules on 14.04.1977. The learned Government Pleader, on perusal of the original records, has made a submission that the records are available to show that the land in dispute is a granted land. 8. It is not in dispute that the land in question measuring 2 acres was originally granted in favour of one Govindamma, the petitioner herein under Darkhast Rules on 14.04.1977. The learned Government Pleader, on perusal of the original records, has made a submission that the records are available to show that the land in dispute is a granted land. The authorities by impugned orders at Annexures A and B have rejected the application on the ground that no original records are available and the petitioner has not produced any records to show that it is a granted land. 9. In view of availability of the original records which is produced by the learned Government Pleader, the finding given by both the authorities vide Annexures A and B, is contrary to the materials available on records. Under these circumstances the matter requires to be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law as per the law laid down by this Court in PEDDA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 1993 Kar. 551. 10. In respect of other contentions regarding whether the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner has produced the document before this Court to establish that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. The authorities shall consider the same. 11. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-B and the order dated 18.05.2007 passed by the third respondent vide Annexure-A are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur for fresh consideration in accordance with law, as per the law laid down by this Court in PEDDAREDDY(supra). 12. Since the matter pertains to the year 2003 and the parties are before this Court, in the interest of justice, both the parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur on 14.02.2020 at 3.00 p.m., without further notice. On that day, the Assistant Commissioner shall fix the further date and the Assistant Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of appearance of the parties.