ORDER : R. Devdas, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition calling in question the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner who have given concurrent findings that the agricultural lands purchased by the petitioner herein under a sale deed dated 09.04.1997 is hit by the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PTCL Act' for short). 2. The land in question was granted in favour of one Thimanna, the husband of respondent No. 3 (since deceased) and father of respondents No. 4 and 5 (since deceased). The legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3 and 5 are brought on record. The land was granted during the year 1961-62. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the said Thimanna had admittedly come from Andhra Pradesh and settled at Tarikere and though he may have belonged to a community which was recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Andhra Pradesh, but the community is not recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the Presidential notification of the State of Karnataka. Therefore, the basic contention is that when the said Thimanna, the original grantee did not belong to a Scheduled Caste, the provisions of PTCL Act, is not attracted. 3. To buttress his contention, the learned Counsel for petitioner has relied upon several decisions of this Court, including Narayan V. Shiroor Vs. The Tahsildar, Bhatkal Taluk, Uttara Kannada District [ 2017 (4) KCCR 2982 ], an unreported decision in the case of Sri M.P. Devaraj Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others in W.P. No. 13527/1998, decided on 02.12.1998, to submit that the fact finding authority are bound to go into the question as to whether the original grantee belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The learned Counsel would also place reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Nityanand Sharma and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2306 and Bir Singh Vs. The learned Counsel would also place reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Nityanand Sharma and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2306 and Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and Others, AIR 2018 SC 4077 , to submit that no Court is empowered to declare equivalence/synonyms and they are devoid of power to include or exclude, substitute or declare synonyms to be of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or group of such caste or tribe. The learned Counsel submits that in a subsequent proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner has given a finding that Thimanna did not belong to a Scheduled Caste category. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel respondents No. 3 to 5 submits that the issue as to whether a person hailing from Andhra Pradesh where the Bovi community, is not a Scheduled Caste, could be considered as a person belonging to scheduled caste in Karnataka, has been considered in the case of D. Kariyappa Vs. Thimmabovi and Others, ILR 2012 KAR 5783. As regards the subsequent proceedings said to have been held by the Assistant Commissioner, it is submitted that no notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, either to Thimmanna or the respondents herein and even otherwise, the decision of the Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of D. Kariyappa (supra). 5. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers. 6. As could be seen from the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, enquiry has been held on the question as to whether the original grantee belonged to a Scheduled Caste category. The Assistant Commissioner has given a finding, based on the documents available on record, that the original grantee Thimanna belonged to 'Vodda community' and the said community is enlisted under the Scheduled Caste list of the State of Karnataka. The Assistant Commissioner has given a finding, based on the documents available on record, that the original grantee Thimanna belonged to 'Vodda community' and the said community is enlisted under the Scheduled Caste list of the State of Karnataka. Further, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5, when the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the case of D. Kariyappa (supra) has specifically considered the question as to whether the original grantee who hailed from Andhra Pradesh, where Bovi community is not declared as a Scheduled Caste community and whether such persons could be considered as those falling under the Scheduled Caste category in the State of Karnataka and it was held that if a person belongs to a community, which in a particular State has been categorized as a Scheduled Caste community, he would be entitled to all the benefits ensuring from such a determination regardless of the position that such a reservation does not exist in the State where he was born, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for petitioner, stands answered. The other decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for petitioner, including the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court are not on the specific issue and therefore, the same will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 7. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders cannot be faulted with. 8. Consequently, the writ petition does not merit consideration and is accordingly dismissed. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. No. 1/2017 does not survive for consideration and accordingly the same stands disposed of.