JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.07.2004 in Writ Appeal No. 795 of 2002 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dismissing the appeal of the appellant confirming the order dated 07.12.2001 in Writ Petition No. 809 of 2000 of the learned single Judge.

3) Brief facts: The land in question bearing Survey No. 72 of Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was allotted to the grand-father of the appellant, namely, Motappa, who belongs to the Bhovi Community under the Mysore Land Grant Rules. The total extent of mortgaged land was 2 acres 29 guntas. Later in 1956, Motappa mortgaged 1 acre of the said land to one Munichennamma. Subsequently in 1959, he mortgaged another portion of the land in favour of one Ramachandra Reddy, who was the father of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 herein by raising a loan of Rs. 1000/- to discharge his previous mortgage amount.

4) After the demise of Motappa and Ramachandra Reddy, B.K. Muniraju, the appellant herein and one M. Gopal paid the mortgaged amount of Rs.1000/- to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and requested them to discharge the mortgage. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 refused to discharge the mortgage on the ground that it was not a mortgage deed but an absolute sale deed. On coming into force of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in the year 1981, the appellant herein along with M.Gopal, who died during the pendency of writ appeal, and also a legal heir of deceased Motappa filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for cancellation of the sale deed and restoration of the land under the provisions of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings on the ground that the alienation is after the expiry period of ten years of non-alienation clause and hence the sale transaction is not in violation of the condition governing grant and, therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11821 of 1987 and the High Court allowed the said petition and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal. The High Court, in its order, directed the Assistant Commissioner to examine the original Saguvali chit besides the original records relating to grant proceedings to the land in question and then decide whether or not the provisions of the Act are attracted to the facts of the case and whether the prohibition or alienation has been violated by the grantee. Based on the said direction of the High Court, the Assistant Commissioner heard the matter afresh. Finally, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the matter holding that the land in question is not a "granted land" but was purchased by Motappa in public auction and hence, the Act is not applicable. It was also held that the auction purchaser does not come under the Rules relating to the grant and there is no violation of the conditions of the grant. Questioning the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal holding that the land granted at an upset price is alienated after a period of ten years of non-alienation condition period, that the land granted at an upset price, did not attract the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner also held that the Saguvali chit issued in Form No.1 indicates that the land was allotted to Motappa in public auction at an upset price of Rs.408.12.

5) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, the