Petitioners are persons in whose favour an extent of 4 acres of agricultural land each in Sy. Nos. 92/2, 92/1 and 92/3 of Meesiganahalli in Kundana Hobli, Bangalore Rural District had been granted free of cost as persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Community in terms of a grant order dated 30-4-1963. Each of the petitioners had sold such lands within a couple of years though in terms of the grant order it had conditioned that the petitioners cannot part with the granted lands for periods ranging from 10 to 15 years.

2. The contesting respondents in these petitions viz., respondents 3, 4 and 5 in W.P. No. 1916 of 2005, respondents 3 and 4 in W.P. Nos. 1917 of 2005 and 1918 of 2005 who were the latest purchasers in a series of transactions and who were in possession of the respective lands in question, had been put on notice by the Assistant Commissioner in the year 1998-1999 at the instance of the petitioners who had moved the Assistant Commissioner for invalidation of such sale transaction for resumption of the lands to the State and restitution of the same to the petitioners/original grantees, in their applications under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short).

3. The Assistant Commissioner issued notices to the purchasers in possession of the lands, held an enquiry and noticing that the first sale transaction by the original grantee being within the prohibited period, the provisions of the Act are very much attracted that they are voided in terms of Section 4 of the Act and therefore declared to this effect and directed resumption of the lands in favour of the State and restitution to the original grantees in terms of the order dated 15-3-1999 Annexure-F in W.P. Nos. 1916 of2005 and 1918 of2005 and Annexure-C in W.P. No. 1917 of 2005.

4. The purchaser, being aggrieved, preferred appeals to the Deputy Commissioner and met with success. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter in terms of common order dated 15-10-2001, Annexure-D in W.P. Nos. 1916 and 1918 of2005 and Annexure-D in W.P. No. 1917 of 2005.

5. On such remand the Assistant Commissioner again became active, held enquiry, heard the learned Counsels for the parties and again allowed the applications affirming his earlier view that the transactions are all voided and therefore resumption and restitution has to be put into operation in terms of his order dated 22-2-2003, Annexure-H in W.P. Nos. 1916 and 1918 of 2005 and Annexure-E in W.P. No. 1917 of 2005.

6. Yet again the aggrieved purchasers preferred appeals to the Deputy Commissioner. This time the Deputy Commissioner allowed all such appeals by order dated 13-12-2004, Annexure-H in W. P. Nos. 1916 and 1918 of 2005 and Annexure-F in W.P. No. 1917 of 2005 for the similar and identical reason that the land though had been granted in favour of the petitioners-grantees in the year 1963 by the Government, it was a land which had been originally granted in favour of one Ramaiah Koira who inturn had sold that land to one KC. Ramaiah in the year 1955 or so; that as the said purchaser had defaulted in payment of land revenue, the land had been forfeited in favour of the State for such a default; that the revenue entries showed that the land as 'phada' i.e., in favour of the Government; that even assuming that it was a 'phada' the Government did not become the owner of the land and original owners or the persons claiming under the original owners had the right to seek restoration of the land in their favour on clearing the arrears of land revenue with incidental charges etc., in terms of Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 read with Sections 160, 161, 164, 165, 169 and 171 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; that there could not have been a fresh grant by the Government in the year 1963 of a land which had been earlier granted in favour of some other