Only government permission can validate a land transfer under Section 4(2) of the Act, and subsequent land use conversion does not affect the Act's provisions.

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petition at the instance of a person in whose favour had been granted an extent of 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 21 (New No. 79), situated at Poojaganahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli taluk, as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community, in terms of grant order dated 15.6.1979. It is such land that the Petitioner had transferred in terms of the sale deed dated 16.10.1994 in favour of the fourth Respondent .

2. Petitioner applied to the Assistant Commissioner invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, the Act] contending that the transaction is to be invalidated in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, as prior permission under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act had not been obtained. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the fourth Respondent , held an enquiry and accepting the version of the applicant-Petitioner allowed the application.

3. The fourth Respondent being aggrieved, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner in terms of his order dated 29.3.2003 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with certain directions with regard to the requirements, particularly on examining the contention on behalf of the purchaser that before the transaction, the grantee having sought for and obtained the permission for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act from the Tahsildar and whether than (sic that) can hold good for ensuring compliance of the requirement of law etc.

4. When the matter came back to the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the permission granted by the Tahsildar itself was sufficient to fulfil the requirement of provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act; that the Respondent in the application while did not dispute that the grantee was a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community, the order dated 18.2.1992 obtained from the Tahsildar granting permission as had been on factual verification found to be in existence and there appears to be a controversy on this aspect earlier and as even the applicant himself had indicated that he is ready and willing to act on such permission and in the totality of the circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application.

5. This time, the Petitioner-applicant was aggrieved and he carried the matter to the Deputy Commissioner by way of appeal, but the Deputy Commissioner also having dismissed the appeal, purporting to follow the ruling of this Court in the case of Ganteppa D. v. Peerappa, ILR 1998 Kar SN 81, the grantee is before this Court by way of this writ petition.

6. Writ petition was admitted and notices had been ordered to the Respondent s. While Sri T.S. Amar Kumar is appearing for the Petitioner, Fourth Respondent -purchaser is represented by Sri B.A. Raviraj, and the statutory authorities - Respondents 1 to 3 - are represented by Sri Bharamagouda B. Goudar, learned Government Pleader. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. Submission of Sri T.S. Amar Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is that the authorities have grossly erred in accepting the stand of the purchaser-fourth Respondent that the transaction is one which is not coming under the web of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act; that the permission granted by the Tahsildar under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act is not a permission as contemplated under the Act; that it is only the government which can grant permission of this nature and as the Tahsildar, being not the competent authority, passed such orders for the purpose of Sub-section (2) Section 4 of the Act, the transaction is hit by the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act and as such it is to be invalidated, but the authorities have erred in holding that the transaction is valid in v