JUDGMENT Jyothi Mulimani, J. - Sri. Sanjay Nair, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. R.V. Jayaprakash, learned for respondents 3 and 4 have appeared through video conferencing. Sri. D.S. Shivananda learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 has appeared in person. 2. The facts are stated as under. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner in physical possession and enjoyment of residentially converted land of Sy. No. 16/P3, situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk having purchased the residentially converted land from its erstwhile owners Sri. Dodda Muniyappa and others under an absolute registered sale deed bearing No. 2894/2005-06 dated 13.04.2005 registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar at Kengeri. The property is claimed to be originally a grant land granted in favor of one Sri. Muniswamy on 21.07.1979. The said Muniswamy was put into possession and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and his name was entered in the revenue records and books. The said Muniswamy is none other than the father of vendors of the petitioner and grandfather of respondents 3 and 4 herein. It is averred that the Grantee had applied for conversion of the land from Agricultural to Non-Agricultural purpose before the Competent Authority. The Authority concerned accorded sanction to use the land in question for residential purpose vide order dated 20.03.1982. After the death of the original Grantee, the revenue records were set right in the name of Grantee's children who are none other than the vendors of the petitioner. The children of original Grantee intended to sell the land in question accordingly they entered into an agreement for sale in favor of one Smt. Ganga Devi. They approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking permission to sell the land in question in favor of prospective purchaser. Accordingly, the Government by its order No. PTCL. CR. 41/2002-03, dated 13.06.2003 through Special Deputy Commissioner granted permission. It is said that the prospective purchaser under the Agreement for Sale failed to purchase the land in question. However, the petitioner expressed his willingness to purchase the land and the vendors of the petitioner once again approached the Competent Authority seeking another permission to sell the land in question in favor of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement stating that the Government had already accorded permission in this regard and fresh permission is not necessary. However, the petitioner expressed his willingness to purchase the land and the vendors of the petitioner once again approached the Competent Authority seeking another permission to sell the land in question in favor of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement stating that the Government had already accorded permission in this regard and fresh permission is not necessary. The petitioner after scrutiny of documents and after scrutiny of the permission granted on 13.06.2003 purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed dated 13.04.2005. Thus, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question and his name is entered into the relevant revenue statutory records. As things stood thus, respondents 3 and 4 being the grand children of the original grantee-initiated proceedings in SC. ST. (S) 28/2006-07 against the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner and contended that the land is a granted land and they are the legal representative's predecessor in title and they belonged to Schedule Caste. It is also contended that the sale made in favor of petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of PTCL Act and sought for cancellation of the sale deed. The petitioner appeared and filed detailed objections and denied the contents. It was specifically pleaded that the Competent Authority has accorded permission to sell the land in question and hence, the sale made in favor of petitioner is valid and proper. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 05.12.2007 allowed the petition and held that the sale deed dated 13.04.2005 is not valid. It is stated that the order was not pronounced in open and the copy of the order was also not served to the respective parties. It is alleged that the Assistant Commissioner hurriedly passed the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Urban in Appeal No. SC. ST(A) 60/2008-09. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 22.02.2010 dismissed the appeal. Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left with no other of alternative and efficacious remedy has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Sri. Sanjay Nair, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the submits that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are wholly illegal and arbitrary. Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left with no other of alternative and efficacious remedy has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Sri. Sanjay Nair, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the submits that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are wholly illegal and arbitrary. Next, he submitted that once the permission to sell the land is granted by the Government the same suffice in law. The permission given to the grantee satisfies the law and falls within the requirements as contemplated under Section 4 (2) the PTCL Act, 1978. A further submission was made that the permission will be given to sell the land and imposition of condition to sell the land to specific person has no validity in the eye of law. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the statue directs that certain act to be done on certain manner or that the power should be exercised in certain manner, and it must be done in the said manner and not in any other manner. It is further submitted that the Act does not specify that the permission to be granted against any specific person so long as there is permission to sell by the Government the sale stands in compliance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, a permission granted would be sufficient under the Act. So long as there is permission as contemplated under the Act, the sale is legal and valid. Counsel therefore, submitted that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have totally misdirected themselves and have erroneously proceeded to hold that the sale is null and void. Lastly, he submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside and writ petition may be allowed. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions. 1. AIR 2008 SC 1276 -Dharma Naika vs. Rama Naika and Another. 2. ILR 1996 KARNATAKA 2361-Thippaiah vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others. 3. 1997 (7) KAR. L.J. 401-smt. Veeramma vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimogga and Others. 4. K.L. Mallikarjunaiah vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, Hassan and Others. 4. Sri. R.V. Jayaprakash, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 justified the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Next, he submitted that the land in question is a granted land. 1997 (7) KAR. L.J. 401-smt. Veeramma vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimogga and Others. 4. K.L. Mallikarjunaiah vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, Hassan and Others. 4. Sri. R.V. Jayaprakash, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 justified the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Next, he submitted that the land in question is a granted land. The grandfather of respondents 3 and 4 was granted the land in question. They belong to schedule caste. They are the legal representatives of predecessor in title. A further submission was made that the children of Muniswamy have sold the granted land in contravention of the provisions of the PTCL Act. The sale deed is not valid. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner has not obtained permission from the Government for the purchase of the property. The Government granted permission to sell the land to one Smt. Ganga Devi and not to the petitioner. There is no prior permission or sanction taken from the Government before executing the sale deed in question. Hence, respondents 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act 1978 before the Assistant Commissioner praying that the sale deed dated 13.04.2005 under which the petitioner purchased the land in question be cancelled and land in question restored to their possession. Lastly, he submitted that Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner considered the material on record and allowed the petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly he submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate justified the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, he submitted that appropriate orders may be passed. 6. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the writ papers with utmost care. The points which arise for consideration is:- Whether permission granted/given by the Government on 13.06.2003 for the sale of granted land would suffice the requirement of law? To answer the point, it would be relevant to refer to Section 4 of the PTCL Act which reads as under:- 4. The points which arise for consideration is:- Whether permission granted/given by the Government on 13.06.2003 for the sale of granted land would suffice the requirement of law? To answer the point, it would be relevant to refer to Section 4 of the PTCL Act which 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 Sub-section(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. (3) The provisions of Sub-sections(1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority. Thus, sub-section (2) of Section 4 put a bar against transfer and the bar is only to be removed by the grant of permission. In other words, a rider has been put by sub-Section (2) that transfer cannot be made without seeking permission of the State Government. Neither the transferee can acquire the granted land by transfer from the grantee without seeking permission of the Government, nor the grantee can transfer it without seeking permission of the Government. The Section per se neither contemplate that the granted land should be sold to a particular person nor to be purchased by a particular person. The Government accords permission for sale of granted land and not to a particular person. It is sufficient that the grantee/or his legal representatives obtains permission for sale of granted land. Reverting to the facts of the case, the legal representatives of original grantee viz., Dodda Muniyappa, Chikkamuniyappa, Gullappa, Mohan, Mallappa (father of respondents 3 & 4) and Sriram had made an application for grant of permission to alienate the land. Accordingly, the Government in their letter No. RD: 173 LGB 2003 dated 04.06.2003 have accorded permission to alienate the land in question as required under Section 4 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Government in their letter No. RD: 173 LGB 2003 dated 04.06.2003 have accorded permission to alienate the land in question as required under Section 4 (2) of the Act. Pursuant to the same, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore in Official Memorandum No. PTCL CR. 41/2002-03 dated 13.06.2003 has accorded permission to alienate the land in question subject to certain conditions. It is relevant to note that the Special Deputy Commissioner exercising power on administrative side, accords permission but on quasi-judicial side, Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner misdirects themselves and erroneously proceed and hold that the permission is granted to sell the land to one Smt. Ganga Devi and not to the petitioner hence, the sale is null and void. Accordingly, passed orders holding that the sale deed in favor of petitioner is not valid and ultimately, ordered for restoration of the land in favor of the legal heirs of the original grantee. In my considered view, the approach is unjust and the same is also contrary to Section 4 (2) of the Act. As already noted above, the Section does not contemplate that the permission should be granted in favor of a particular person. On the other hand, Section simply contemplates that permission should be obtained for the sale of granted land. I may venture to say that the name of the person is not the requirement of law. It is needless to say that permission will be given to sell the land and imposition of condition to sell the land to a specific person is not the requirement of law and hence it has no validity in the eye of law. In the instant case, the legal representatives of original grantee decided to sell the land in question to one Smt. Ganga Devi and accordingly permission was obtained to sell the land. However, the land was not sold to Smt. Ganga Devi. Subsequently, the legal representatives of original grantee decided to sell the land in favor of the petitioner and the registered sale deed was executed on 13.04.2005 in favor of the petitioner. It is needless to observe that once the grantee/or legal representatives of the original grantee decides to sell the land, it should not matter whether the sale is made to 'A' or 'B'. It is needless to observe that once the grantee/or legal representatives of the original grantee decides to sell the land, it should not matter whether the sale is made to 'A' or 'B'. Hence, the reasoning of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner that permission was granted to sell the land in favour of Smt. Ganga Devi and not to the petitioner is totally erroneous. Counsel for petitioner has cited a number of cases, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decisions. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, this Court exercising power under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India issues a writ of certiorari and quashes the order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-the first respondent in appeal No. SC-ST(A)60/2008-09 vide Annexure-'A' and the order dated 05.12.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner-the second respondent in case No. SC/ST [S] 28:2006 vide Annexure 'F'.