1. Writ petition by purchaser of a granted land measuring 4 acres 34 guntas in Sy No 58 of Hanumapura village, Birur hobli, Kadur taluk, Chikkamagalur district, claiming right, title and interest in this land under a sale transaction dated 1-6-1993, executed by respondents 5 and 6 – sons of K N Nanjundappa.

2. Subject land had been sold to the father of the petitioner by respondents 5 and 6, who in turn acquired right, title and interest to the land under an earlier sale transaction dated 28-6-1991 executed by the first respondent, who had claimed to be adopted son of one Chikkathimmaiah [Chinnathimmaiah] and the said Chikkathimmaiah had got the land under a grant order dated 8-8-1954 in a proceeding of the Deputy Commissioner under depressed classes dharkast rules vide Order No 6/54-55 and the land having been given free of cost under the said Rules, subject to various conditions, particularly one of permanent non-alienation of the land.

3. Petitioner, who claims right, title and interest in the land in such a manner, is now aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of order dated 16-12-2004 [copy at Annexure-E to the writ petition] passed under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, the Act] and affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner passing order under Section 5A of the Act as per the order dated 7-12-2009 [copy at Annexure-F to the writ petition] and has sought for quashing of these orders.

4. Under the impugned orders, the authorities under the Act had opined that the subject land being a granted land and having been sold for the first time by a person claiming to be a legal heir of the original grantee i.e. first respondent as per the sale transaction dated 28-6-1991 i.e. after the Act coming into force and not being preceded by permission granted by the state government to this effect, first transaction as well as the subsequent transaction under which petitioner derived title are voided under Section 4 (2) of the Act and had, therefore, directed resumption of the land to the state and to restore in favour of respondents 1 and 2 claiming to be legal heirs of the original grantee. This order though challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal under Section 5A (1A) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner having dismissed the appeal as per his order dated 07.12.2009, (Annexure-‘F’ to the Writ Petition).

5. It is these orders which are questioned in this writ petition and Sri M B Naragund, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged many legal grounds to invalidate the impugned orders.

6. Grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner are that, in the first instance, the land cannot be understood to be a granted land, inasmuch as the land, no doubt was a government land and had been granted as per a grant order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it had been granted in favour of Chikkathimmaiah, a person belonging to korama setty community, which was not notified as an SC community, either at the time of grant or even at the time when Assistant Commissioner began the enquiry under Section 5 of the Act. It is, therefore, urged that the very provisions of the Act are not attracted, impugned orders are not sustainable and should be quashed.

7. Second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that father of petitioner – Soppina Obanna – who had participated in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and who had preferred appeal, had expired during the pendency of the appeal i.e. he died on 26-11-2009, whereas the Deputy Commissioner has, in terms of his order dated 7-12-2009, dismissed the appeal and with the order being passed against a dead person, is nullity in law, which is a principle well recognized and well accepted in legal circles. It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner should be set aside and ma