1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. By the said order, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.09.2011 rejecting the claim for restoration of the land is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The petitioner who had at the first instance succeeded before the Assistant Commissioner is before this Court in this petition.

2. The land measuring 1 acre 33 guntas in Sy.No.48/4 of Visweshwarapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru District was in the ownership and possession of late Hanumanthaiah to whom the occupancy right had been granted by the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala Taluk through the order dated 29.06.1981. The said extent of 1 acre 33 guntas was purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deeds dated 07.12.2000 and 06.06.2003. The petitioner accordingly having secured the revenue entries in his name was in possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. When this was the position, respondents No.4 to 10 herein claiming to be the family members of late Hanumanthaiah and contending that the land granted by the Land Tribunal was sold by late Hanumanthaiah in contravention of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PTCL Act' for short) filed the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner seeking that the sale deeds referred to above be declared as null and void and restore the land to the applicants.

4. The Assistant Commissioner through the order dated 12.09.2011 was of the view that the PTCL Act does not apply to the present transaction and rejected the application. Respondents No.4 to 10 claiming to be aggrieved filed the appeal to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A(1A) of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner having framed the issues for consideration has taken note of the decisions rendered by the Full Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court and also keeping in view the circular issued by the Government has set aside and remanded the matter for reconsideration in that light. The petitioner is therefore assailing such order which according to him is contrary to the legal position.

5. Respondent No.9 has filed the objection statement seeking to sustain the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and it is contended that no adjudication has been made by the order impugned which calls for interference. In the process of reconsideration all aspects would be taken note by the Assistant Commissioner is the contention. It is further contended that the land having been granted by the Land Tribunal with conditions attached will have to be construed as 'granted land' as defined under the PTCL Act. In that view, the sale deeds executed by late Hanumanthaiah without obtaining permission from the competent authorities is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. The contention essentially is that when the grantee under any type of grant is a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the land in question will have to be construed as the 'granted land' under the PTCL Act. Hence, it is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel on behalf of Ms. Srividya for respondents No.4 to 10, Sri Dildar Shiralli, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and perused the petition papers.

7. In the case on hand, the fact that the land in question situate in Sy.No.48/4 of Visweshwarapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District was the subject matter before the Land Tribunal being governed under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. ('the LR Act 1961' for short) and the occupancy right under the said Act was grante