JUDGMENT :

C. Nagappan, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 8.6.2007 rendered by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 3901 of 2005, whereby the Division Bench in a common judgment affirmed the decision of the learned single Judge by dismissing the writ appeals. The appellants herein are prior and subsequent purchasers of the subject property.

3. The facts in brief are summarised as follows: One Venugopala Swamy son of Muniyappa filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North, stating that his father Muniyappa belonged to scheduled caste and he was granted 1 Acre 13 Guntas of land in Survey No.69 and 27 Guntas of land in Survey No.70 of Tubarahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore during 1961 in Darkasth and Muniyappa sold the granted lands to Ramaiah Reddy by sale deed dated 9.10.1967 and he repurchased the same under sale deed dated 13.7.1972 and again he has sold the same in favour of appellant Yashwanth Shenoy and the alienation being in violation of the conditions of grant, it has to be declared as void.

4. The Assistant Commissioner held an inquiry and after hearing the parties by order dated 26.3.1999 held that the transfer of the granted lands at the first instance by sale deed dated 9.10.1967, is in violation of the terms of grant and the sale deed as well as the subsequent sale deeds are illegal and void and declared that the lands be resumed to the State and restored to the original grantee Muniyappa under Section 5(1) of the Act. The appellant Yashwanth Shenoy preferred appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 27.2.2004. The appellant Yashwanth Shenoy challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.17842 of 2004 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka. Meanwhile the legal heirs of the grantee Muniyappa filed suit for partition in O.S.No. 4981 of 1999 and the suit is still pending. They also got impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition by order dated 30.11.2005. Aggrieved by the same, appellant Yashwanth Shenoy preferred appeal in writ appeal no.3901 of 2005 and obtained interim order of stay dated 23.1.2006 subject to the condition that the appellant shall not make any construction in the land. He executed Deed of Relinquishment dated 20.1.2007, relinquishing his right and interest in the granted lands in favour of the original grantee Muniyappa. On the same day Muniyappa sold the said lands to the other appellant herein Subramanya and he was also impleaded as respondent in the writ appeal.

5. The Division Bench heard Writ Appeal No.3901 of 2005 along with another appeal in Writ Appeal No.151 of 2006 preferred by the legal representatives of the original grantee pertaining to the order passed in mutation proceedings of which we are not concerned in the present appeals. By common judgment dated 8.6.2007 Division Bench dismissed both the writ appeals. Challenging the order of dismissal in Writ appeal No.3901 of 2005 the present appeals have been preferred.

6. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Yashwanth Shenoy contended that the appellant by filing memo sought for withdrawal of the writ appeal but the High Court erroneously declined permission. It is his further submission that the said appellant has relinquished his right and interest in the property in favour of the original grantee Muniyappa and he has nothing to pursue in the matter and the refusal of permission is bad in law. The learned counsel appearing for legal heirs of the deceased appellant Subramanya contended that the grantee Muniyappa obtained prior permission of the Government as stipulated under the Act and executed the sale deed for valid sale consid