.

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CJ.—This appeal assails the order dated 30th May, 2011 by which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and mulcted the petitioner with costs of Rs. 10,000/- for ‘virtually misleading the Court and asserting non-existing grounds’. The writ petition challenges the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District dismissing the Appeal filed against the Order dated 19.1.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Sub-Division holding that the alienation of the land in question was in violation of Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978) (‘PTCL Act’ for brevity).

2. The reason for the dismissal of the writ petition with costs is borne out from a succinct narration of the facts of the case. We need to revert to the earlier order dated 27.1.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of the undivided Kolar district, which remained unchallenged by all concerned. That Order held that the non-alienation condition for a period of 15 years had been violated. Hence the alienation fell within the mischief of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the sale was inefficacious, null and void and the land was required to be re-allotted to the original grantee. By a previous writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 18145/2010, another learned single Judge had granted permission to the appellant to assail the said order dated 27.1.2007. It is in these circumstances that W.P. No. 38245/2010 came to be filed, which as we have already mentioned, was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the case put forth before the writ Court. According to the appellant, the subject land was purchased by Byatappa uncontrovertly belonging to the Schedule Castes community, in an auction sale by the Government for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. The learned single Judge has recorded that the submission that the sale consideration was Rs. 4,000/- is intendingly misleading, since it was only Rs. 40/- (which only covered procedural fee for the issuance of the Saguvali Chit dated 18.7.1963). The writ Court also found that Rules 43-G and 43-J of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 were not attracted, even assuming that the land had originally been allowed to be used by Byatappa under the ‘Grow More Food’ scheme. The Writ Court also found that reliance on behalf of the petitioner/appellant on Siddamma vs. Chikke Gowda, 1991 (1) Kant. L.J. 210 was of no avail.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to B.K. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 1438 which clarifies that the nomenclature employed in the document as ‘Certificate of Grant’ should not inevitably and inexorably lead to the conclusion that the land was conveyed by way of a grant. Their Lordships had enjoined a perusal of the document itself to ascertain the nature of the conveyance. The concurrent finding in Muniraju was that despite the document being titled as a ‘Certificate of Grant’, it was not granted land and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. We must, therefore, immediately peruse the conveyance in question. The nomenclature employed therein is—“Grant Certificate under Land Revenue Code Condition-E Scheduled Caste”. The document employs the words, ‘purchased.....the entire cost of Rs. 40/- “in favour of Byatappa. However, the Certificate clearly stipulates that the land in question had been granted on the condition of its not being alienated for a period of 15 years. Keeping these stipulations in view, the Deputy Commissioner had indeed struck down the sale and ordered the re-allocation of the land to the original grantee. This also is the view of the learned single Judge and, therefore, there were concurrent findings of fact against the appellant.

5. It does not lie in the mouth of the appellant, who has purchased the land contrary to the explicit terms of non-alienation for a period of 15 years to contend tha