1. This writ petition was heard extensively, at some length on earlier occasions and today and I have heard Sri K G Raghavan, learned senior advocate, who has appeared for the petitioner and also his colleague Sri Ganapathi Hegde, who has made elaborate further submissions today.

2. In the present writ petition, writ petitioner, who is son of one C I Thomas, claims interest in an agricultural land located in Old Sy No 28 (New No 127) of Byrathi village, Bidarahalli hobli [formerly Hoskote taluk, now Bangalore east taluk, to an extent of 2 acres of land in this particular survey number, and is aggrieved by the order dated 22-11-2011 [copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition], where under the right, title and interest, if any claimed by the writ petitioner as successor to late C I Thomas, has been extinguished by invalidating the sale deed dated 9-1-1995 executed by one Ms Dipika Elizabeth Fernandes, who, as per this sale deed, had conveyed 2/3rd share in the property in question in favour of the father of writ petitioner and of course under the very order, the Deputy Commissioner having given a like treatment to another sale deed of even data, under which Mr C I Thomas had acquired the remaining 1/3rd undivided share in the agricultural land in the very survey number, as per conveyance deed executed by one Mr Wilson Christy Luther in favour of the father of petitioner and this order is the cause for the above writ petition.

3. I have also heard Sri R Omkumar, learned AGA and Sri R Bhadrinath, learned counsel for first respondent.

4. Sri Ganapathi Hegde has placed considerable reliance on Annexure-B to the writ petition, an extract from the mutation register indicating the change of entries in the revenue records, particularly showing the nature of right that has accrued in favour of persons whose names figure in the revenue records and the source of such right. In this document, the source of title/right indicated as per RR No 246 to 256 dated 8-6-1947, indicating the names of as many as 11 persons and the first name being of one Thayappa, a person belonging to adi-karnataka community and in whose favour an extent of 2 acres of land in Block-II of Sy No 28 of Byrathi village, Bidarahalli hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, K R Pura, Bangalore had been granted. The very register having also showed the name of one Poojiga, as the last but one name, and in whose favour land was granted to the same extent in the very survey number, but in block No 2.

5. However, reliance is placed on the following endorsement at the bottom of the mutation register:

“KANNADAM”

6. It is this endorsement which is relied upon very strongly by learned counsel for the petitioner to submit that the land in question being a land which had been sold in a public auction, which, in turn, implies that it is sold for a price and being an absolute sale, it does not carry any condition with it and therefore the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, the Act], are not attracted and for such submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B K MUNIRAJU vs STATE OF KARNATAKA [AIR 2008 SC 1438]. Strong reliance is placed on the paragraphs 10, 11 and 16 of this judgment.

7. Submission of Sri Ganapathi Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that if the land, assuming it to be a granted land, it cannot be construed as a granted land for the purpose of sub-rule (3) of Rule 43 of Rules under Karnataka Land Revenue Code, 1888 [for short, the KLRC Rules] and while the grant is governed by the condition occurring in sub-rule (1) of Rule 43, if at all the condition which is incorporated in the grant order may operate and nothing more.

8. However, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that with the writ petition is placed a copy of the saguvali chit which had been issued in favour of the said Thayappa, way back in the year 1947,