JUDGMENT : VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J. This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20602/2021 (SC/ST). 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the land bearing old Sy.No.13, new Sy.No.71, measuring 2 acres situated at Bommanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore Rural District, was granted by the State Government on 15.01.1979 in favour of late Sri.Narasaiah, husband of the appellant No.1 and the father of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 as they belong to Scheduled Caste. The saguvali chit was issued on 30.07.1980. The grantee-late Narasaiah, along with his wife executed a sale deed dated 04.09.1985 to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of N.S.Gangadhar. The grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which came to be allowed. The Deputy Commissioner further upheld the appeal and restored the land in favour of the grantee. Later, the said purchaser got executed a sale deed from the grantee for 1 acre of land after obtaining permission from the Authority for alienation. Later Smt.Jayamma, sister-in-law of the grantee-late Narasaiah also alienated 25 guntas in favour of Jayaram-respondent No.9 and the respondent Nos.4 to 7 gifted 1 gunta in favour of Nagaraju. The appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Act which came to be allowed by ordering resumption and restoration. The Deputy Commissioner reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants challenged the said order in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that the grantee purchased the land in a public auction and the land is beyond the purview of the Act and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed. 3. Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge erred in recording the finding that the land is beyond the purview of the Act and late Narasaiah had purchased the said land in a public auction which was uncalled for. It is submitted that none of the parties to the proceedings have raised this issue. It is submitted that none of the parties to the proceedings have raised this issue. Infact, the respondents' pleading indicate that the land was granted to Naraisaiah and thereafter, they sold the land after obtaining permission from the Authority. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner to examine whether the land in question is a granted land or late Narasaiah purchased it in a public auction. It is also submitted that the alleged permission to alienate was not in force as on the date of sale and gift deeds as there is violation of the condition of the alleged permission. A perusal of the condition indicates that the permission order would be in force for 4 months and the transfer in question is beyond 4 months. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Rahul S.Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.9 and Sri.V.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.8 support the impugned order and submit that the learned Single Judge examined the records and recorded a clear finding that the subject matter of the property is purchased by late Narasaiah in a public auction. Hence, the question of seeking permission from the Competent Authority for alienation and the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act would not arise. It is submitted that out of 2 acres of land, 1 acre was retained by late Narasaiah and another 1 acre was given to late Sri.Chowdaiah who is none other than his brother, in a partition and thereafter, mutations have been effected and the name of late Chowdaiah and his legal heirs were continued in the revenue records and thereafter, as an abundant caution, obtained permission from the Authority and sold 25 guntas of land in favour of the respondent No.9 and 1 gunta of land was gifted in favour of respondent No.8. It is further submitted that the appellants have no right whatsoever over the land in question since they have sold their portion long back in favour of N.S.Gangadhar. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides. 6. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides. 6. The point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the impugned order calls for any interference?" 7. The answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative for the following reasons: a) The material on record indicate that the land in old Sy.No.13, new Sy.No.71, measuring 2 acres situated at Bommanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore Rural District, was granted by the State Government on 15.01.1979 in favour of late Narasaiah, husband of the appellant No.1 and the father of the appellant Nos.2 and 3. The saguvali chit was issued on 30.07.1980. b) The grantee-late Narasaiah, along with his wife executed a sale deed dated 04.09.1985 to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of N.S.Gangadhar. Thereafter, the grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur, ordered for restoration and resumption of the land in favour of the grantee vide order dated 26.12.2000. The purchaser filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, which came to be dismissed on 04.11.2002. (c) Late Narasaiah and his brother late Chowdaiah got partitioned the granted land by Panchayat palu patti. As per the partition, an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.71 was allotted to the share of late Narasaiah and the remaining 1 acre of land was allotted to the share of late Chowdaiah as is evident from Annexure-R1. The revenue entries were mutated in the name of late Narasaiah and late Chowdaiah, respectively to the extent of 1 acre each as per the partition. The name of late Chowdaiah was effected in the revenue record as per M.R.No.7/1992-93 as is evident from Annexures-R2 to R4. Late Narasaiah and the appellants alienated 1 acre of land in favour of N.S.Gangadhar after obtaining the permission from the Authority. Late Narasaiah died on 11.02.2009 leaving behind the appellants as his legal heirs. The name of late Chowdaiah was effected in the revenue record as per M.R.No.7/1992-93 as is evident from Annexures-R2 to R4. Late Narasaiah and the appellants alienated 1 acre of land in favour of N.S.Gangadhar after obtaining the permission from the Authority. Late Narasaiah died on 11.02.2009 leaving behind the appellants as his legal heirs. (d) Smt.Jayamma, sister-in-law of late Narasaiah and wife of late Chowdaiah along with respondent Nos.5 to 7 alienated 25 guntas of land that fell in the share of late Chowdaiah in favour of Jayaram-respondent No.9 and gifted 1 gunta in favour of Nagaraju-respondent No.8 vide gift deed and sale deed both dated 05.08.2019. The aforesaid alienation is after obtaining the permission from the Authority. It is to be noticed that the said permission for alienation dated 08.11.2017 was not challenged by the appellants. Now, they cannot contend that the sale deed and gift deed are in violation of condition No.4. Late Narasaiah and late Chowdaiah got partitioned the property and the said partition was acted as is evident from the revenue records and thereafter, the appellants sold the property that fell in their share in favour of N.S.Gangadhar and the remaining property of 1 acre which fell in the share of late Chowdaiah has been sold and gifted in favour of the respondent Nos.8 and 9 to the extent of 25 guntas and 1 gunta, respectively and 14 guntas of land was retained by them. The aforesaid events and the records supporting the said events prima facie indicate that the appellants have no right over the land which is the subject matter of this appeal. It is made clear that the aforesaid findings recorded by us are only restricted for the lis in question. (e) The appellants initiated proceedings for resumption of the land in question which came to be allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur, vide order dated 23.11.2020 and which was reversed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, by setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22.10.2021 as is evident from Annexure-L. The finding of the Assistant Commissioner would run contrary to the material placed before this Court. We have already recorded the finding that the appellants have no prima facie right whatsoever with regard to the land in question. Hence, initiation of proceedings for restoration and resumption of the land before the Assistant Commissioner ought not have been entertained. We have already recorded the finding that the appellants have no prima facie right whatsoever with regard to the land in question. Hence, initiation of proceedings for restoration and resumption of the land before the Assistant Commissioner ought not have been entertained. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, has recorded a detailed finding and held that the sale and gift have taken place after obtaining the permission from the Competent Authority. The said finding of fact is based on the material on record. We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner. (f) The learned Single Judge, on a careful perusal of the grant order recorded a finding that late Narasaiah has purchased the schedule property in a public auction. The said finding is based on analyzing the very grant order. We do not find any error in the said finding. Even otherwise, we have recorded a clear finding that the appellants have no right over the schedule property and the sale and gift are effected after obtaining the permission from the Competent Authority and in the absence of any challenge to the permission granted by the Authority for alienation, the legal heirs of late Narasaiah cannot contend that the sale and gift deeds are in violation of the Act and seek for resumption and restoration of the land. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge held that the schedule property is purchased by late Narasaiah in public auction and the said finding is based on the material on record. If that is so, the schedule property goes beyond the purview of the Act. Hence, the question of seeking permission, filing an application for restoration would not arise. (g) The learned Single Judge, considering the pleadings, arguments advanced and the material on record has come to the conclusion that the order of the Deputy Commissioner does not call for any interference and dismissed the petition. We do not find any error in the said finding of the learned Single Judge calling for interference in this intra Court appeal. 8. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.