The order dated 3rd November 2011 passed in No. REV/PTCL/CR02/200809 by the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Basava Kalyan, under the provisions of Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) is challenged in this petition by the petitioners and the prayer is for setting aside the same.

2. The facts of the case are that the land in question was granted in the year 1990 with a condition that the same shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years and contrary to the said condition, the petitioners allege that they have purchased it on 13th February 1998. After purchasing the land, there is an improvement made in the land and also got it converted into for non-agriculture purpose. Under the circumstance, the Assistant Commissioner, lacks jurisdiction to interfere. Earlier the petitioners had approached this Court in Writ Petitions No.8060180604 of 2009 and by its order dated 22nd September 2010 the petitions came to be disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to hear the petitioners before revoking the conversion order. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order is contrary since the petitioners have not been heard in this regard.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submits to dismiss the petition. He submits that undisputedly alienation has taken place within the prohibition period of fifteen years. It is also admitted by the petitioners that the land in question was purchased within the prohibited period. Under the circumstance, Assistant Commissioner, rightly, has the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act and accordingly he has held that the sale made on 13th February 1998 is null and void. Hence he submits to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the materials available in the petition. Earlier, petitioners have approached this Court with a complaint that they were not heard in the matter, and the said petition was disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to hear the petitioners before revoking the conversion order. It is to be noted that provisions of law are made keeping in mind the interest of the persons belonging to weaker sections, more particularly, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The land belonging to Government was granted prohibiting alienation for a period of fifteen years and contrary to the said prohibition, if the land is alienated within the said period, the Assistant Commissioner of the sub-Division has got jurisdiction; and hence, he has held that the sale made in favour of the petitioners is null and void. Even if the alienation has taken place after the completion of the prohibition period, sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act mandates that permission of the Government is required. None of the provisions have been complied with before alienating the land. Under these circumstances, I hold that the order Annexure-A dated 3rd November 2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Basava Kalyan is sound and proper and he is directed to resume and restore the lands in favour of the respondents.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to approach the Deputy Commissioner, who is the appellate authority, under Section 5A of the Act. Alternatively, he also submits that the matter could be remand to the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to provide him an opportunity of being heard. The Assistant Commissioner has passed the order on 3rd November 2011 and the appeal should have been filed within a period of thirty days. But there is a delay of three years in filing the appeal and the petitioners are before this Court, which is not an appropriate Court, and under these circumstances I am not inclined to grant permission to the petitioners to approach Deputy Commissioner.

6. As regards al