JUDGMENT : (S.G. PANDIT, J.) The appellants–respondents before the learned Single Judge are before this Court under Section–4 of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 24.04.2017 in W.P.No.51716/2016, where under the 4 th respondent’s writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 16.08.2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner and restoring the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the application for restoration of land in favour of the appellants herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.Saravana, for appellant no.1, Sri.H.S.Jithendra, learned counsel for appellant Nos.2 to 7, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the land in question i.e., measuring 1 acre, 33 guntas in Survey No.48/4 of Visweshwarapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru district was granted to one Hanumanthaiah under order dated 29.06.1981 by the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala, registering him as an occupant of the land in question. The appellants herein along with the grantee Hanumanthaiah, sold the property in question in favour of respondent No.4 herein - petitioner before the learned Single Judge under sale deed dated 07.12.2000 in respect of 1 acre out of 1 acre, 33 guntas of land and by another sale deed dated 06.06.2003, he sold the remaining 33 guntas of land. 4. Thereafter, the appellants herein filed an application before the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner under Section–5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short ‘PTCL Act’) for restoration of land in question. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 12.09.2011, rejected the application of the appellants against which the appellants filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order impugned allowed the application and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner, with a direction to take up the matter for fresh enquiry, with dew notice to both the parties and examine the matter. 5. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the fourth respondent was before this Court in Writ Petition No.51716/2016, where under the learned Single Judge under the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of MOHAMMED JAFFAR AND ANOTHER VS. 5. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the fourth respondent was before this Court in Writ Petition No.51716/2016, where under the learned Single Judge under the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of MOHAMMED JAFFAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS , [ILR 2002 Kar 4693] , allowed the writ petition and set-aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Singe Judge, the respondents are in appeal. 6. Learned Counsel, Sri.S.Saravana for the appellants would submit that the land granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 would also fall within the meaning of ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(1)(b) under PTCL Act and would attract the provisions of PTCL Act. He would further submit that the order of the Deputy Commissioner would only remand of the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, wherein it would have enabled the parties to file relevant documents, as well as relevant circulars, on which the Assistant Commissioner has to arrive at a proper conclusion. 7. Learned Counsel, Sri.S.Saravana would further submit that the State Government has issued several Circulars to protect the interest of the oppressed class and the said Circulars cover the cases wherein lands granted under the provisions of Land Reforms Act. Thus would submit that the learned Single Judge committed error in allowing the writ petition and he prayed for allowing the writ appeal. 8. Per contra, learned AGA, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, the only point that would arise for consideration is: Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires any interference at the hands of this Court? 10. The answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons: Admittedly, the land to one Hanumanthaiah husband of the first appellant and father of the other appellants, was granted land under order dated 29.06.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. 10. The answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons: Admittedly, the land to one Hanumanthaiah husband of the first appellant and father of the other appellants, was granted land under order dated 29.06.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The said land was sold to the fourth respondent herein under two different sale deeds dated 07.12.2000 and 06.06.2003. Subsequently, the appellants filed an application under Section–5 of the PTCL Act, praying to restore the land which was sold in favour of the respondent No.4. Third respondent – Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 12.09.2011 rejected the application of the appellants on the ground that the provision of PTCL Act would have no application. Thereafter, the appellants filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal filed by the appellants before the Deputy Commissioner was allowed in part and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner, with a direction to take up the matter for fresh enquiry. 11. It is the case of the appellants that the learned Single Judge committed an error in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner where under the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was set-aside, wherein the Assistant Commissioner had specifically come to the conclusion that the provisions of PTCL Act has no application, qua the lands that are granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 12. Learned Single Judge placing reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of MOHAMMED JAFFAR supra , has rightly come to the conclusion that occupancy right granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, would not fall within the ambit of 'granted land' as defined under PTCL Act. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there are Circulars protecting the rights of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Category and under such Circulars, the grants made by the Land Tribunal are to be considered as granted land under the provisions of PTCL Act. No such Circular is brought to our notice. Even if such circular exists, the same would be contrary to the decision of the Full Bench referred to above i.e., MOHAMMED JAFFAR (supra). Thus, we do not find any merit in the above writ appeal and accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected.