The petitioners have raised the challenge to the order, dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure-B) passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure-A) passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the land measuring 3 acres situated at Survey No. 116 of Kurubarahalli Village. Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, was granted to one Rangaiah on 31.1.1963. The said Rangaiah availed of some financial assistance from the father of the fourth respondent. On his inability to repay the amount, Rangaiah sold the land to the fourth respondent on 30.4.1966. Thereafter, the Saguvali Chit came to be issued to the said Rangaiah on 21.12.1967. The petitioners claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased Rangaiah made an application before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereafter called ‘PTCL Act’ for short). The Assistant Commissioner took the view that, as the sale is effected even before the issuance of the Saguvali Chit, the grantee or his legal representatives are not entitled to restoration. He therefore passed the order, dated 24.2.2005 turning down the petitioners’ request for the restoration of the granted land. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner directed that the lands be resumed to the Government free from encumbrances. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, who by his order, dated 11.12.2008 dismissed the petitioners’ appeal by confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner’s reasoning is that Rangaiah himself had not acquired any right and title over the land because he sold it to the respondent 4 even before the issuance of Saguvali Chit.

3. These two concurrent orders are being assailed in this writ petition. Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issuance of the Saguvali Chit is an administerial act. The non-issuance or the delay in its issuance of Saguvali Chit would not have the effect of validating the sale and/or the forfeiture of the land to the Government. He submits that whether the Saguvali Chit is issued or not, the rule imposing the embargo or restraint on alienating the property for fifteen years has to be given effect to. The learned Counsel pointedly brings to my notice the language employed in Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. The Legislature has consciously used the words “in contravention of the terms of the grant” and not “in contravention of the terms of the Grant Certificate or Saguvali Chit.”

4. Sri Hebbar also relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Karappa Bovi V. Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore and Others 1990 (3) Kar. L.J. (Supp.) 361 (DB). The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted herein below:- “7…….The moment land is granted to a member of the Scheduled Caste under the Darkhast Rules, whether it is free grant or for a reduced upset price, the prohibition against alienation imposed under the Rules operate, as held by the Division Bench in Laxmamma V State of Karnataka and Others, 1983 (1) Kar. L.J. 417 (DB) itself. Once such bar is prescribed under the statutory rules, that bar cannot be got over by any individual by violating the law even before the issue of Saguvali Chit. In our opinion, therefore, in respect of a granted land, whether the sale is made after the issue of Saguvali Chit or before, the effect is one and the same. It would be a sale in contravention of the terms of grant and therefore the prohibition contained in Section 4 of the Act gets attracted. In our opinion, the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner that in the present case that the sale was not in violation of the grant on the ground that the sale was before the issue of Saguvali Chit, is erroneous…………”

5. Sri R. Devdas, the learned Additional Government Advocate appeari