The central legal point established in the judgment is that for a land to be considered 'granted land' under the Act, it must have vested in the State absolutely, which was not the case in this instance.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is a person who had filed an application under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short), claiming to be a legal heir of an original grantee namely, one Mr. Doddamuniswamy, a person belonging to Scheduled caste and who had been granted an extent of four acres of land in survey No. 107 (Present Sy No. 163) of Pattandur Agrahara of K. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.

( 2 ) THE land in question appears to have been sold by the said doddamuniswamy on 23-10-1967 in favour of one Era Reddy, who in turn had sold it to others and ultimately is now traceable in the hands of respondents 4 to 6. The petitioner requested the Assistant commissioner to invalidate the transactions as being in violation of the terms of the grant and for restoration of the land to the petitioner. The assistant Commissioner who had issued notice of the application and who had held an enquiry, was of the view that the land in question cannot be termed as a 'granted land' within the meaning of Section 3 (l) (b) of the Act and accordingly rejected the application. The appeal preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, also having been dismissed by an order dated 3-11-2003 (copy at Annexure-A), petitioner has approached this Court.

( 3 ) THE authorities below were of the view that the land in question was not a granted land for the reason that the land had been originally granted to the grandfather of the petitioner by an order dated 3-2-1962 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition under the provisions of Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) inams Abolition Act, 1954 ('the Inams Abolition Act' for short ). The authorities also found that the order was not one granting any land in favour of the petitioner's grandfather who in fact had sought for conferment of occupancy rights as an applicant and as a permanent tenant and it was only this right that the Special Deputy Commissioner had confirmed and that the land which was already in possession of the petitioner's grandfather continued to remain so under this order also. The Assistant Commissioner, by following the ruling of this Court rendered in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Another v State of karnataka and Others, and applying the same held that the transaction sought to be invalidated was not one attracting the provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) SRI Viswajith Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that if one looks at the definition of 'granted land' under the Act, it is obvious that it includes lands granted even in the context of the provisions of agrarian reforms or abolition of inams and the present land being granted to the grandfather of the petitioner in the context of the abolition of inams under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, it should be necessarily held to be a granted land within the meaning of section 3 (l) (b) of the Act and if so, the authorities below were wrong in rejecting the application of the petitioner at the thereshold holding that the provisions of the Act are not applicable.

( 5 ) THE alternate submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 3-2-1962 can be construed as an order akin to an order that can be passed by a Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his functions under section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and if so, on the ratio of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of mohammed Jaffar's, supra, a land of this nature should be held as a land which comes within the meaning of 'granted land' as it occurs in section 3 (l) (b) of the Act and if so, on such reasoning also, the orders passed by the authorities below is not sustainable and they are required to be quashed and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for a proper consideration.

( 6 ) SRI K. Su