( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner-sri s. v. prakash and Sri c. b. minajagi for respondents 1 to 7 and Smt. Shanthakumari learned government pleader for respondents 8 and 9. These petitions raise common question of law in the contest of common facts so are being disposed off by common order.

( 2 ) BY these petition, the petitioners have sought the issuance of writ of certiorari and the quashing of the order passed by the assistant commissioner, shimoga dated 16-8-1995, in case No. Sc/st 68 of 1985-86, on 9-6-1997, copy of which is Annexure-B to the writ petition, as well as quashing of the order passed by the deputy commissioner, shimoga in sc/st case No. 68 of 1985-86, on 9-6-1997, and also the order of the assistant commissioner, shimoga sub-division, shimoga in case nos. Ptcl. Cr. 272 of 1979-80, 275 (b) of 1979-80, 276 of 1979-80, 277 of 1979-80, 278 of 1979-80, 284 of 1979-80 and 285 of 1979-80.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the land in question involved in these cases were granted under durkasth payment system, by an order dated 21-10-1962. The survey number involved in these cases, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition was divided into 8 blocks. Out of 8 blocks, 6 blocks contained 32 guntas each and two blocks contained 31 guntas each. The original grantees sold these blocks granted to them, to one basavanneppa under registered sale deed dated 24-8-1966 and the transferee according to the petitioner's case was put in the possession of the lands. Said basavanneppa sold the lands to lalithamma under registered sale deed and lalithamma sold these lands to the petitioner. Proceedings under Section 5 (1) of the scs/sts (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (act 2 of 1979) were initiated on the report of the tahsildar, shimoga, to the assistant commissioner.

( 4 ) IN the writ petition, it has been stated that neither the petitioner nor shivalingegowda, who were arrayed as the respondents in the proceedings were served with show-cause notice. From a perusal of the order of the assistant commissioner, it appears that on 24-1-1981 show-cause notice had been issued to the respondents, calling them to show-cause within 15 days to the notice, why land in question should not be restored to the applicants or the grantees. But the respondents failed to furnish any explanation or reply to the show-cause notice within the stipulated time. Thereafter the assistant commissioner clubbed the cases together and enquiry was made and further notice was issued to the applicants-respondents to attend the hearing of the cases. On the second notice of hearing, both the parties that is the applicants and respondents attended the court and after perusal of the records the assistant commissioner passed the order declaring the sale transactions in question to be null and void, under Section 4 (1) of the Act, as according to the assistant commissioner, the alienation of the land was in breach of non-alienation clause, which was contained in the grant, subject to which the grants was made. The assistant commissioner, further directed that the land after resumption would be restored to the applicants under Section 5 (l) (b)of the act.

( 5 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the order of the assistant commissioner, the petitioner filed the appeal, which were finally disposed of and dismissed and the deputy commissioner passed the order dated 9th june, 1997 dismissing the petitioner's appeal No. 68 of 1985-86 as rejected and so the petitioner has come up in this court, from this order dated 9-6-1997. Before proceeding further to complete the facts, it may also be mentioned, as appears from the order of the deputy commissioner itself that appeal No. 68 of 1985-86, had been dismissed on 8-2-1990, for non-prosecution, then matter had come up in writ petition No. 7943-a to 7943-f of 1990, and this court by order dated 30-10-1990, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the authorities