ORDER : This case has a checkered history. On 06.11.1939, 2 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.114 of Ramagondanhalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk was granted by the sub-divisional Officer to Sri Poojiga s/o Yellappa with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 20 years. However, Poojiga sold the granted land in favour of Govindappa s/o Nanjappa on 24.10.1951, before the completion of the non-alienation period. Thereafter the lands changed hands three times, the last of the transactions being on 17.11.1980, when it was purchased by Sri N.Ravikiran and Sri N.Kumar. Sri Poojiga filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, invoking the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PTCL Act’). By order dated 31.12.1983, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application while holding that the first sale transaction dated 24.10.1951 was in contravention of the conditions of grant and therefore the said transaction and all subsequent transactions are void. It is contended that the land was restored, physically to Poojiga on 11.09.1985. Sri Poojiga died in the year 1988. 2. The purchasers i.e., Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the appeal was dismissed on 02.02.1998. Not being satisfied, the purchasers approached this Court in W.P.No.18169/1998, which was dismissed on 11.08.1999 and the writ appeal filed by the purchasers in W.A.No.6649/1999 was also dismissed as withdrawn, on 23.10.2000. In the meanwhile, Smt Narasamma, the widow of Poojiga, who felt threatened by the interference caused by Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran, filed O.S.No.46/1992 seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The suit was decreed and therefore Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran preferred a Regular Appeal in R.A.No.63/1998. The Regular Appeal and thereafter Regular Second Appeal in R.S.A.No.761/2001 were also dismissed. The RSA was dismissed on 22.06.2007. 3. In the meanwhile, Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran, who had suffered the orders at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner and an adverse order in the original suit filed by Smt. Narasamma, filed O.S.No.193/1995 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District arraigning Smt.Narasamma, W/o Poojiga as the defendant, seeking a declaration that the endorsement dated 31.12.1983 issued by the Assistant Commissioner is null and void and sought for permanent injunction. It appears that during the pendency of the suit Smt. Narasamma passed away and therefore her daughter Smt. Venkatamma, her children Sri Venkatesh and Sri Muniraju were brought on record as the legal representatives of Smt.Narasamma. The said Sri Venkatesh and Sri Muniraju (the petitioner herein) filed an interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC r/w Section 5(2) of the PTCL Act seeking rejection of the plaint, on the ground that suit is barred by an express provision of the PTCL Act and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. When the application was rejected, Sri Venkatesh and the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.13523/2012. This Court by order dated 13.06.2012 allowed the writ petition and consequently I.A.No.19 was also allowed while holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the specific bar provided under the PTCL Act. Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran had preferred an SLP calling in question the order passed in W.P.No.13523/2012 and on dismissal of the SLP, they had filed a review petition in R.P.No.41/2013. Nevertheless the review petition was also dismissed by order dated 17.10.2014. 4. In the meanwhile, after passing away of Smt.Narasamma, one Sri Venkatesh approached the Tahsildar seeking mutation of katha in his name, on the ground that Smt.Narasamma had left behind a Will. The katha was mutated in the name of Sri Venkatesh in IHC No.13/2004-05 dated 02.03.2005 and MR No.87/2004-05. Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran had questioned the mutation entry before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.72/1986-87. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 17.08.1987 dismissed the appeal. Further, the said Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran filed O.S.No.170/1988 seeking decree of permanent injunction along with an application seeking temporary injunction restraining Smt. Narasamma, since deceased, her daughter Smt. Venkatamma and grand sons Sri Venkatesh and Sri Muniraju, not to alienate the suit schedule property. Since an exparte order of temporary injunction was granted, an application was filed by the defendants to vacate the exparte order of temporary injunction. By order dated 20.04.1989, the exparte order was vacated. 5. Being aggrieved, Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran preferred an appeal in M.A.No.46/1989 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore and the appeal was dismissed on 20.12.1991. A Regular Second Appeal was filed by Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran in R.S.A.No.761/2001. The RSA was dismissed by order dated 22.06.2007. By order dated 20.04.1989, the exparte order was vacated. 5. Being aggrieved, Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran preferred an appeal in M.A.No.46/1989 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore and the appeal was dismissed on 20.12.1991. A Regular Second Appeal was filed by Sri N.Kumar and Sri N.Ravikiran in R.S.A.No.761/2001. The RSA was dismissed by order dated 22.06.2007. However, it is contended that during the course of the Regular Second Appeal in RSA No.761/2001, Smt. Narasamma, w/o Poojiga died and therefore when applications were filed by different parties claiming to be the legal representatives of Smt. Narasamma, an enquiry was directed to be conducted to find out as to who amongst the five persons are the legal representatives of Smt.Narasamma. All the five persons were given opportunity to adduce evidence and to be cross examined. Eventually, by order dated 26.02.2007 it was held that Smt. Venkatamma, W/o Yellappa, her sons Sri Venkatesh, S/o Yellapppa and Sri Muniraju, S/o Yellappa are the legal representatives of Smt.Narasamma. The claim of Sri Venkatesh as the adopted son and Sri Madhu of being the legal representatives was rejected. 6. The petitioner contends that when the matter remained thus, the 4th respondent herein, allegedly got a sale deed dated 24.03.2008 executed from Sri Venkatesh (the person who claimed to be adopted son and declared by the Civil Court that he was not the legal representative of Smt. Narasamma and Poojiga) and one P.Srinivas who claimed to be the GPA holder of Smt. Venkatamma, Smt. Lagumamma and Smt.Laxmi, daughters of Sri Yellappa and Smt.Venkatamma, Sri Venkatesh and Master Muniraju, minor, sons of Sri Yellappa and Sri Venkatamma. 7. Sri N.Ravikiran and Sri N.Kumar filed O.S. No.1523/2008 seeking a declaration of the sale deed dated 24.03.2008 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. A written statement is filed at the hands of the petitioner and his mother, brothers and sisters. 8. Subsequently, during the year 2013, the petitioners herein filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act, seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 24.03.2008 is null and void. A written statement is filed at the hands of the petitioner and his mother, brothers and sisters. 8. Subsequently, during the year 2013, the petitioners herein filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act, seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 24.03.2008 is null and void. Strangely, even after noticing that in the earlier round of litigation the Assistant Commissioner had held an enquiry and declared that the first sale transaction dated 24.10.1951 and all other subsequent sale transactions are null and void, and the matter had reached finality, the Assistant Commissioner, in the second round of litigation holds that the grant was made during ‘No Rule Period’, that since the applicant and his family members have not executed the sale deed dated 24.03.2008, nevertheless, after restoration under the provisions of the PTCL Act, if the granted land is once again alienated, the grantee/his legal heirs are liable for prosecution, saying so, the Assistant Commissioner rejects the application while dropping all further proceedings. 9. The case becomes murkier when the Special Deputy Commissioner, in the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein relies upon a document dated 13.12.2005 said to have been issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner stating that permission is granted under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, to Sri Venkatesh S/o Poojappa to transfer the land in question. The Deputy Commissioner proceeds to hold that since prior permission under Section 4(2) of the Act is given by the Government, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and consequently dismisses the appeal. However, it is contended at the hands of the petitioner that an application was made to the Deputy Commissioner on 23.09.2017 seeking for information and copy of the document dated 13.12.2005 which was claimed by Sri Venkatesh as prior permission granted under Section 4(2). The Deputy Commissioner has issued an endorsement dated 13.10.2017 stating that no such document is available in the office of the Deputy Commissioner and consequently a copy of the same cannot be issued. One more endorsement dated 22.10.2018, at Annexure-V is also issued by the Public Information Officer and Under Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, stating that no such permission has been granted by the Government and therefore copy of the same cannot be issued. 10. One more endorsement dated 22.10.2018, at Annexure-V is also issued by the Public Information Officer and Under Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue, stating that no such permission has been granted by the Government and therefore copy of the same cannot be issued. 10. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the Assistant Commissioner has been ignoring the basic facets of law. In the first round of litigation, pertaining to the sale transaction dated 24.10.1951 and the subsequent transactions including 17.11.1980, there is a finding that the transfer is in contravention of the conditions of grant and therefore all the sale transactions were held to be void. The said finding of fact and law has attained finality at the hands of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. That being the position, the Assistant Commissioner was precluded from going into the question of validity of the grant dated 06.11.1939, made in favour of Poojiga. Unfortunately, this Court is required to notice that this officer Sri N Mahesh Babu, the then Assistant Commissioner of Bangalore North Sub-Division, in yet another case of similar nature, where in the first round of litigation it was concluded that the question of ‘No Rule Period’ cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of that case, has ignored the decisions and directions given by this Court and has held in the second round of litigation that since the grant was made during a period when there was no rule regarding stipulation of non-alienation condition, the land cannot be termed as ‘granted land’ and it does not fall within the purview of the PTCL Act. This Court has noticed the conduct of the Assistant Commissioner in W.P.No.60483/2016. 11. Further, the Assistant Commissioner, though notices the contention of the petitioner that neither he nor his mother, brother and sisters have executed any sale deed, moreso, the sale deed dated 24.03.2008, proceeds to hold that when the land in question was resumed and restored in favour of the original grantee and subsequently, the legal heirs of the original grantee, including the petitioner have once again sold the property without obtaining pervious permission as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act and therefore the petitioner/legal heirs of the original grantee are liable for prosecution. It is rather unfortunate that an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner does not understand the basic tenets of law. 12. The appellate authority, Special Deputy Commissioner, is also equally guilty of such indulgence. For the first time, the respondent No.4 herein put forth a plea that they had obtained prior permission at the hands of the government. In this regard, a document dated 13.12.2005, said to have been issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner stating that permission is granted under Section 4(2) of the Act, to Sri Venkatesh S/o Poojiga to transfer the land, is placed before the Special Deputy Commissioner. No clarification is sought by the appellate authority. The Special Deputy Commissioner has noticed the various litigations between the parties, including the question regarding who are the legal heirs of Smt. Narasamma and her husband Poojiga. He notices the declaration made by this Court in RSA No.761/2001 that Sri Venkatesh who claimed to be the adopted son of the Poojiga is not the legal heir of Poojiga. Such being the case, it is hard to understand how the Special Deputy Commissioner accepts the opinion of the Assistant Commissioner that the sale deed dated 24.03.2008 was executed by Smt. Venkatamma and her children, through the said Venkatesh and one Sri. P Srinivas who claimed to be the Power of Attorney Holder of Smt. Venkatamma and her children. When the parties are hotly contesting the matter, it was incumbent upon the Special Deputy Commissioner to find out why the respondent No.4 herein had not placed the document dated 13.12.2005 before the Assistant Commissioner; why the respondent No.4 had not brought this aspect before the civil Court in O.S.No.1523/2008; whether the document dated 13.12.2005 is a genuine document, issued by the government? It is another matter that the petitioner herein has furnished two documents-endorsement dated 13.10.2017 said to be issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner and endorsement dated 22.10.2018 issued by the Under Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, stating that no such permission has been granted by the government. 13. The parties to the proceedings have not furnished any information as to what happened to O.S.No.1523/2008, said to have been filed by Sri N Ravikiran and Sri N Kumar seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 3.04.2008 is null and void. 13. The parties to the proceedings have not furnished any information as to what happened to O.S.No.1523/2008, said to have been filed by Sri N Ravikiran and Sri N Kumar seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 3.04.2008 is null and void. It is given to understand that in the written statement filed by the respondent No.4 herein, they have not whispered anything about the permission granted by the government. The 4th respondent has also not stated before the Assistant Commissioner that prior permission was obtained at the hands of the government. 14. The contention of the 4th respondent that the application made by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner was required to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka and Another, reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 and Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. M. Ashwatha and others, reported in 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 176 (SC), requires to be rejected. This is because the petitioner herein has approached the Assistant Commissioner to declare the sale deed dated 24.03.2008 as null and void, on the ground that neither the petitioner nor his mother Smt. Venkatamma and/or her children have executed the said sale deed and neither have they executed any power of attorney authorizing any person to sell the property or to seek permission from the government. Therefore, this is not a case where the time for approaching the Assistant Commissioner could commence from the date of execution of the document. This is a case falling under Section 5(3) of the Act where a presumption shall be drawn that where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other than the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved that, such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 4. Therefore, the burden is on the 4th respondent herein to prove that he has obtained prior permission from the government, in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act and that Smt. Venkatamma and her children, including the petitioner herein have executed the sale deed dated 24.03.2008 in his favour. Therefore, the burden is on the 4th respondent herein to prove that he has obtained prior permission from the government, in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act and that Smt. Venkatamma and her children, including the petitioner herein have executed the sale deed dated 24.03.2008 in his favour. The question of application of the ruling of the Apex Court regarding delay and laches would arise only if the 4th respondent is able to prove that the sale deed dated 24.03.2008 was legally executed by Smt. Venkatamma and her children, consequent to which the time starts running for the petitioner. 15. Consequently, the writ petition stands partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.12.2014, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order dated 05.09.2018, passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands remanded to the Special Deputy Commissioner, for the purpose of ascertaining from the government as to whether it had granted permission to Smt.Venkatamma and her children to sell the land in question in favour of the 4th respondent herein. If the answer is negative, then the Special Deputy Commissioner is required to direct resumption of the land from the 4th respondent, to be restored in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. On facts, if the legal heirs of the original grantee have continued to be in physical possession of the lands, since they contend that they have not executed any sale deed in favour of the 4th respondent, even then, a formal order is required to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner to ensure that the sale deed in question is declared null and void and the revenue records are mutated in the name of the legal heirs of the original grantee. 16. On the other hand, if it is found that Sri Venkatesh (the executant of the sale deed dated 24.03.2008) and Sri P.Srinivas, who claimed to be the Power of Attorney Holder of Smt.Venkatamma and her children, including the minor son Muniraju (petitioner herein) had secured prior permission from the government, on behalf of Smt. Venkatamma and her children, the Special Deputy Commissioner shall further probe into the matter. The Power of Attorney, through which Sri Venkatesh and Sri P Srinivas claim the delegation of power shall be sent for examination at the hands of scientific experts, to find out whether Smt. Venkatamma and her children had indeed executed the Power of Attorney. If the scientific expert’s opinion would be that the document was indeed executed by Smt.Venkatamma and her children, the Special Deputy Commissioner is entitled to go into the merits of the matter including question of delay and laches in filing the application before the Assistant Commissioner. However, the issue regarding grant in favour of poojiga and conditions of grant shall not be gone into. 17. On the other hand, if the scientific expert’s opinion is negative, the Special Deputy Commissioner shall proceed to allow the application and pass orders/directions as stated above. However, having come across several such instances where a power of attorney is secured from the original grantee/legal heirs to approach the government seeking prior permission in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act, this Court sees the need to caution the government. The laudable objective with which the PTCL Act was enacted could be circumvented if a person other than the original grantee/legal heir were to be entertained by the government while considering an application seeking prior permission. Therefore, the State Government shall ensure that applications seeking prior permission in terms of Section 4(2) shall not be entertained unless the original grantee/legal heir makes the application in person and is summoned before the concerned officer of the government to test the veracity of the claim. It is also necessary to ensure that while granting prior permission, a condition shall be imposed that the sale consideration shall be made only through Account Payable Cheques or Demand Drafts. This is necessary to ensure prompt payment. In this case, in the sale deed in question, it is stated that cash payment of Rs.1,40,00,000/-is made to the vendor. Necessary Government Order/Circular in this regard shall be issued by the State Government. A copy of the Government Order/Circular which would be passed by the State Government shall be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) showing compliance, within a period of eight weeks. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka. A copy of the Government Order/Circular which would be passed by the State Government shall be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) showing compliance, within a period of eight weeks. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka. The petitioner and the 4th respondent shall appear before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, on 1st of July, 2021, at 3.00 p.m., without waiting for further notice. The Special Deputy Commissioner shall endevour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from 1st of July, 2021. It is ordered accordingly.