ORDER : T.M. NADAF, J. 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 19.06.2023, in Writ Petition No.4101/2022 (SC/ST), passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case as found in paragraph Nos.4 to 7 of the order impugned reads as under: “4. It is not in dispute that one Guruvayya, Sanna Thimmayya and Dodda Thimmayya were granted with lands in Survey No.248 vide order dated 14.4.1956. Survey No.248/1 measuring 9 acres 27 guntas is granted to one Guruvayya, similarly, land bearing survey No.248/2 measuring 9 acres 27 guntas is granted to Sanna Thimmayya and the land bearing Survey No.248/3 measuring 9 acres 27 guntas is granted to one Dodda Thimmayya. 5. Respondents 10 to 13 are tracing their right and title through the original grantee namely Guruvayya based on a registered sale deed. It is not in dispute that petitioners are the legal heirs of one Sanna Thimmaiah, while respondents 5 to 9 are the legal heirs of Guruvayya, who are not disputing the title of respondents 5 to 13. Survey No.248/1 which is granted to Guruvayya is re-assigned new survey No.471 while Survey No.248/2 measuring 9 acres 27 guntas which was granted to Sanna Thimmaiah is reassigned new Survey No.472. 6. The petitioners herein strangely moved an application before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner seeking change of khata on the premise that the land which was granted to their ancestor Sanna Thimmaiah is now restored by the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act"). Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner in turn, referred the matter to Respondent No.4-Tahsildar to hold an enquiry. On receipt of report by Respondent No.4-Tahsildar vide Annexure-G, Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner strangely takes up a suo-moto enquiry under the provisions of the PTCL Act and passes an order for restoration in respect of Survey No.471 which was never granted to the petitioners' ancestor namely Sanna Thimmaiah. 7. Respondents 10 to 13 feeling aggrieved by this order of restoration, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner on an enquiry found that petitioners were not entitled to seek restoration of the land. Accordingly, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal and reversed the order of restoration. 7. Respondents 10 to 13 feeling aggrieved by this order of restoration, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner on an enquiry found that petitioners were not entitled to seek restoration of the land. Accordingly, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal and reversed the order of restoration. The Deputy Commissioner while allowing the appeal held that petitioners cannot assert and claim that they are the legal heirs of Guruvayya. The second ground on which the Deputy Commissioner reversed the order is on the premise that the lis between the parties is purely a disputed question of fact and therefore, has proceeded to relegate both the parties to establish their right before the competent civil Court. This order is under challenged at the instance of the petitioners.” 3. The learned Single Judge after going through the entire materials placed before him found that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga - respondent No.2 does not call for interference and dismissed the writ petition, subscribing his reasons for the same at paragraph Nos.8 to 11, which reads as under: “8. On meticulous examination of the entire material on record, I would not hesitate to hold that the entire claim of the petitioners is found to be totally misconceived. Under the garb of change of katha, petitioners have cleverly made an attempt to lay a claim over Survey No.248/1 now reassigned as Survey No.471 which is granted to Guruvayya. If Survey No.471 was allotted to Guruvayya and he during his life time has sold half portion in favour of the vendor of respondents 10 to 13, the petitioners under the garb that Guruvayya died intestate cannot lay a claim over the property by approaching the revenue authorities. Whether Guruvayya died intestate and whether respondents 10 to 13 have acquired valid right and title based on a registered sale deed are all disputed questions of facts. Though an impression was given to this Court that petitioners intended to get their names mutated to Survey No.248/2 based on the restoration order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the statement made across the Bar is found to be not in consonance with the pleadings and claim by the petitioners before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. 9. Though an impression was given to this Court that petitioners intended to get their names mutated to Survey No.248/2 based on the restoration order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the statement made across the Bar is found to be not in consonance with the pleadings and claim by the petitioners before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. 9. Be that as it may, if petitioners' ancestor Sanna Thimmaiah was granted Survey No.248/2 measuring 9 acres 37 guntas, which is reassigned Survey No.472, the order passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference. Respondents 10 to 13 to further strength their case have produced the record of rights at Annexure- R5 which pertains to Survey No.471, which is standing in the name of Guruvayya and Annexure-R6 which is standing in the name of Sanna Thimmaiah i.e. survey No.472. These two revenue entries would clinch the entire controversy followed by the revenue entries. The present petitioners have meddled with the property bearing Survey No.472. The same is evident from Annexure-R12, which is produced along with the statement of objections. This is the sale deed executed by petitioners on 11.5.2015 in favour of one S.S. Matapathi. This transaction pertains to Survey No. 472. If petitioners have meddled and alienated the entire extent in Survey No.248, by way of mutation proceedings, they cannot lay a claim over the land granted in favour of Guruvayya under whom the petitioners are tracing their right and title based on a registered sale deed. It is also borne out from the records that respondents 10 to 13 are in fact purchasers in respect of 4 acres 39 guntas, while remaining portion is found to be in possession of respondents 5 to 9, who claim to be the legal heirs of Guruvayya, which they have acquired pursuant to the restoration order passed in their favour. 10. In the light of the discussions made supra, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. The application submitted by petitioners seeking change of khata pertaining to the land which was granted to Guruvayya was itself not maintainable. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner has also misdirected himself and has exceeded in his jurisdiction in converting the mutation proceedings into a restoration proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act. The application submitted by petitioners seeking change of khata pertaining to the land which was granted to Guruvayya was itself not maintainable. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner has also misdirected himself and has exceeded in his jurisdiction in converting the mutation proceedings into a restoration proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act. This has only aggravated the situated and respondents 10 to 12 and 5 to 9 for no reasons are compelled to undergo long ordeal of unnecessary litigation. 11. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed accordingly.” 4. It is this order which is under challenge in this intra-court appeal. 5. Heard Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.B.V.Gopala, learned counsel appearing for appellants, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4; Sri.Devhadas, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Narendra D.V. Gowda, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.7 to 9 and for Smt.K.S.Anasuyadevi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 13, and Sri. Siddappa B.M., learned counsel for respondent Nos.15 to17. 6. Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel submitted that one Challakeraiah, was having three sons, viz., 1) Doddathimmaiah, 2) Sannathimmaiah and 3) Guruvaiah. The said Doddathimmaiah died unmarried and Guruvaiah though married to Ramakka both died issueless. Sannathimmaiah was married to one Mallamma and they had five daughters and three sons. For brief reference the genealogical tree produced along with the writ appeal, is reproduced as it is: “I Sri/Smt.P. Thippeswamy, S/o. Eranna a resident of Kasaba Hobli Gandhinagara Village / Town, I have written the family tree as under. If there is any wrong information in my family tree statement, I am personally liable for legal action. In relation to the family tree, the family tree is written in the presence of Notary with the attestation of two local witnesses and a self-declaration which is true. This Family Tree is written for the purpose of : The family tree written is confirmed by the informant himself as per the information given to me. This family tree is not a substitute document for creating civil documents. But will be treated as document of Succession Letter. Name and Signature of witnesses Sd/- Channakeshava Murthy Dhananjaya.” 7. This genealogical tree is issued as per the information given by the party (V.Thippeswamy). As per the endorsement in Kannada, the document shall not be considered as a substitute for creating a civil Right. This document shall not be considered as a succession letter. Name and Signature of witnesses Sd/- Channakeshava Murthy Dhananjaya.” 7. This genealogical tree is issued as per the information given by the party (V.Thippeswamy). As per the endorsement in Kannada, the document shall not be considered as a substitute for creating a civil Right. This document shall not be considered as a succession letter. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of branch of Late Sri.Sannathimmaiah. Appellants herein are claiming to be the only nearest legal heirs to Sri.Guruvaiah who died issueless, being the descendants of his brother Sannathimmaiah. 8. He further submitted that all the three brothers were granted 9 acres, 27 guntas each of land by the erstwhile Amaldar in the year 1956, free of cost. As per the then Revenue Code there is a prohibition of 15 years for transfer of the land. The said Guruvaiah during his life time sold 2 acre, 33 guntas of land in favour of Aseena Banu and Sait Imtiyaz. There was an order on 15.09.1995 by the then Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") which was reversed by the Deputy Commissioner holding that there is a dispute in respect of legal representatives of deceased Guruvaiah and the Revenue Courts are not enjoined with the powers to decide on the said facts. However, held that since the order passed the Assistant Commissioner suffers from legal error, the land cannot be resumed to the Government as the purchasers are in the possession of the land for more than 12 years, and so also for more than 30 years from the date of sale deed till the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. It is the specific case of the appellants that the land measuring 9 acres, 27 guntas granted in favour of Guruvaiah was in Survey No.248/1, re-numbered as new survey No.471. The land measuring 4 acre, 31½ guntas, out of 9 acres, 27 guntas in renumbered survey No.471/2 had been sold by Sri.Guruvaiah during his life time. In the year 1987, the remaining land measuring 4 acres, 37 guntas renumbered survey No.471/1 was sold by one Thippaiah claiming to be the legal heir of Guruvaiah in favour of G.S.Thippe Swamy. The land measuring 4 acre, 31½ guntas, out of 9 acres, 27 guntas in renumbered survey No.471/2 had been sold by Sri.Guruvaiah during his life time. In the year 1987, the remaining land measuring 4 acres, 37 guntas renumbered survey No.471/1 was sold by one Thippaiah claiming to be the legal heir of Guruvaiah in favour of G.S.Thippe Swamy. The said sale comes to be cancelled by the order of the Assistant Commissioner on 19.04.2000 on the premise that there is violation of provisions contained more especially under Section–4 of the PTCL Act and the land was ordered to be restored to the legal representatives of the original grantee, which was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner and the same came to be dismissed in the year 2005. This, as per the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, attained finality as there was no challenge laid against the said order nor the said Thippaiah who suffered an order at the first round of litigation had taken any legal action to claim as legal heir of Guruvaiah. 10. It is further stated that, the appellants being the only nearest legal heirs as they are the children of the brother of the deceased Guruvaiah coming within the purview of Class-II heirs are entitled to the remaining land so also the compensation for the land, which has now been acquired by the National Highway Authority for construction of roads. 11. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the appellants herein approached the Assistant Commissioner for entering their names in respect of the land left behind by Sri.Guruvaiah. The Assistant Commissioner directed the concerned Tahsildar to report on the legal representatives of Guruvaiah, who accordingly, filed a report in favour of the appellants, stating that Guruvaiah died issue less and the appellants are the only nearest legal heirs available in the village. On such report, the Assistant Commissioner initiated a suo-moto proceedings under the PTCL Act and passed an order on 12.01.2016, vide Annexure-H, declaring all the sale deeds in respect of survey No.471, measuring 9 acres, 27 guntas as void and directed to take the land in possession, of Government free from all encumbrances, to restore the same to the legal heirs of the original grantee i.e., the appellants herein. The Deputy Commissioner without going through the provisions of PTCL Act allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 12. The Deputy Commissioner without going through the provisions of PTCL Act allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 12. The learned Senior counsel stressed upon Sections-5 and 11 of the PTCL Act and submitted, that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the appellants herein are the legal heirs of deceased Guruvaiah has become final and cannot be questioned in any court of law in view of Section-5(2) and the overriding effect of Section-11 of PTCL Act, which says that the provisions of the Act are overriding, being the special enactment, all the provisions of any other Acts, notwithstanding the fact there is inconsistency. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider these provisions and came to a wrong conclusion by upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, that there are disputed facts with regard to the right of the legal heirship which comes within the domain of civil court and seeks to set-aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge so also to quash the order of the respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner. Alternatively, he submitted that in the event this Court feels that the parties are to be relegated to the Civil Court for determination of their rights, in that eventuality the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner at the earlier point of time dated 19.04.2000 and 09.11.2005 and so also the finding of the Assistant Commissioner on the legal heirship of the deceased Guruvaiah in the order at Annexure-H, dated 12.01.2016 may not be disturbed, in view of Section-5 and Section-11 of the PTCL Act. 13. Per contra, Sri. R.Devhdas, refuting the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law. The original respondent Nos.5 and 6 and respondent Nos.7 to 9 herein are the direct legal heirs of Guruvaiah. Though the appellants claims to be the legal heirs of the branch of the Sannathimmaiah, the alleged brother of Guruvaiah, in the presence of Class-I heir they cannot claim themselves as the legal heirs of Guruvaiah. That apart, the respondent Nos.5 to 9 are the Class-I legal heirs of Guruvaiah and the appellants herein are not at all connected to the family of the said respondents. They are total strangers. That apart, the respondent Nos.5 to 9 are the Class-I legal heirs of Guruvaiah and the appellants herein are not at all connected to the family of the said respondents. They are total strangers. The genealogical tree produced by the appellants clearly shows that the same is issued at the instance of one of the appellants, as per his information. The same shall not be considered as a substitute to a civil document nor shall be construed as a succession letter. So also, respondent Nos.10 to 13 being the subsequent purchasers perfected their rights and in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Ramalakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another , 2018 (1) KAR LR 5 (SC) , in view of delay, the prayer to seek the sale deeds be annulled cannot be granted. He also submitted that, part of the land in dispute in survey Nos.471/1 and 471/2, now acquired by the National Highway Authority. In view of the disputed rights of the parties, claiming under deceased Guruvaiah the Land Acquisition Officer has, deposited the amount of compensation, before the Reference Court. The parties are required to prove their rights before the Reference Court as the said Court being the Civil court in its originality, the party which succeeds would get all the benefits viz., the compensation amount as well as restoration of the land in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and confirmed by the learned Single Judge. 14. Upon hearing the learned Senior counsel for the respective parties and perusing the records placed before us, the admitted fact is that Guruvaiah had been granted 9 acres, 27 guntas of land in erstwhile survey No.248/1 and new survey No.471. Dodda Thimmaiah and Sanna Thimmaiah were also granted 9 acre 27 guntas each in the very same survey No.248/2, and248/3 new Survey Nos.472 and 473. 15. The disputed facts are that the appellants herein claims that Dodda Thimmaiah, Sanna Thimmaiah and Guruvaiah are brothers. Dodda Thimmaiah died unmarried and Guruvaiah died issueless. They are the nearest legal heirs available to Guruvaiah being the children of his elder brother Sanna Thimmaiah. Whereas the respondent Nos.5 to 9 claims that they are the class-I heirs of Guruvaiah and the appellants are no where related to the family of Guruvaiah. Guruvaiah is not the brother of either Dodda Thimmaiah or Sanna Thimmaiah. 16. They are the nearest legal heirs available to Guruvaiah being the children of his elder brother Sanna Thimmaiah. Whereas the respondent Nos.5 to 9 claims that they are the class-I heirs of Guruvaiah and the appellants are no where related to the family of Guruvaiah. Guruvaiah is not the brother of either Dodda Thimmaiah or Sanna Thimmaiah. 16. From the records, it is evident that Sanna Thimmaiah has been granted 9 acres, 27 guntas of land in survey No.248/2 and the land bearing Survey No.248/3 measuring 9 acres, 27 guntas is granted to one Dodda Thimmayya. As per Annexure-R6, the RTC of the land bearing Survey No.472, was standing in the name of Sannathimmaiah. The entire land in survey No.472 has been sold to one S.S.Matapathi in the year 2015 by the appellants. Now they are claiming on the property which has been granted in favour of Guruvaiah as the nearest legal heirs on the premise that the said Guruvaiah died issueless. Both the claims by the appellants as well as respondent nos.5 to 9 herein are in respect of the legal heirship to deceased Guruvaiah, which is the exclusive domain of the Civil Courts as per the powers given under the law. The parties are required to prove their relationship with deceased Guruvaiah by clinching evidence as the right involves substantial right to status, and to the immovable property left behind by the deceased. Neither the Revenue Authorities nor this Court exercising power under Article – 226 of the Constitution of India has any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputed facts between the parties. 17. The Deputy Commissioner has taken a call on the disputed facts in terms of law holding that the Revenue courts have no jurisdiction to decide on the disputed facts between the parties. The same being a civil right required to be adjudicated before a Competent Civil Court. The learned Single Judge is right in upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 18. So far as the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that a civil suit is not maintainable or parties cannot approach Civil Court on any decision rendered under Section-5 of the PTCL Act so also due to overriding effect by way of Section-11 of PTCL Act is concerned. 18. So far as the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that a civil suit is not maintainable or parties cannot approach Civil Court on any decision rendered under Section-5 of the PTCL Act so also due to overriding effect by way of Section-11 of PTCL Act is concerned. For easy reference we reproduce Section-5 and 11 of PTCL Act as under: “5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands - (1) Where, on application by any interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo-motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of section 4, he may,- (a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such grantee or legal heir; such land shall be deemed to have vested in the Government free form all encumbrances. The Government may grant such land to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to grant of land. (1A) After an enquiry referred to in sub-section (1) the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an order accordingly. (2) [Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under section 5A, any order passed] 1 under 2 [sub-section (1) and (1A)]2 shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. (3) For the purposes of this section, where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other then 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 sub-section (1) of section 4. (3) For the purposes of this section, where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other then 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 sub-section (1) of section 4. 5(A) xxx 6 xxx 7 xxx 8 xxx 9 xxx 10 xxx 11. Act to override other laws.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract or any decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority.” 19. As could be gathered from Section-5 of PTCL Act, the intent of the legislature is very much clear, by sub-section-(2) of Section-5 of PTCL Act. Sub-section-(1) says the Assistant Commissioner on an application by any interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo moto and after such enquiry, if satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void being against the provisions contained under Section-4 of the PTCL Act, he may pass an order to declare that the deeds under which a transfer is made as null and void and resume the land and regrant it to the original grantee or the legal heirs as per sub- section-(3). What comes out from the provisions more especially sub-section-(2) is, it is only the order declaring the transfer as void and resumption of the land and restoring the land to the grantee or in his absence to his Legal Representatives if any, shall not be questioned before any Court except as per Section-5A of PTCL Act, before the Deputy Commissioner. But the same shall not be read beyond that, i.e., adjudicating as to who are the legal heirs of the original grantee when there is a dispute between the parties in that respect. The legislatures with all wisdom left it to the domain of the civil courts for adjudication. The provisions cannot be stretched to the extent of holding that the Assistant Commissioner can decide on the heir-ship of any original grantee as argued by the learned senior counsel. The legislatures with all wisdom left it to the domain of the civil courts for adjudication. The provisions cannot be stretched to the extent of holding that the Assistant Commissioner can decide on the heir-ship of any original grantee as argued by the learned senior counsel. The disputed facts between the parties, is a civil right required to be decided as contained under the provisions of Section- 34 of the Specific Relief Act before the Competent Civil Court. As per the record, and submissions made by the respective learned Senior Counsel, it is clear that part of the land in dispute has been acquired by the National Highway Authority and in view of the dispute the matter has been referred to the reference court, wherein the amount of compensation has been deposited, the parties if they choose so, may approach the reference court to stake their claim with regard to the heir-ship as claimed by the appellants as well as by the respondent Nos.5 to 9 to deceased Guruvaiah. In that eventuality, the Reference Court being a Civil Court in its originality adjudicate upon the rights of the parties exclusively and independently on the evidence and proof, both oral and documentary, submitted by both the parties. 20. For the reasons stated supra we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga and the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the same, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER : i) Writ appeal filed challenging the order dated 19.06.2023, in Writ Petition No.4101/2022(SC/ST), passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, fails as devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. ii) No order as to cost.