1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub Division, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking resumption and restoration of the land in terms of the provisions contained under The Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, SCST (PTCL) Act).

2. Facts involved in the case, briefly stated are that four acres of land comprised in Sy.No.202 of Dogglapura village of Tarikere Taluk was granted in favour of father of petitioner by name Aadiyappa on 30.06.1957. He belonged to Scheduled caste. Aadiyappa sold the land in question on 10.04.1974 in favour of one T Sudhakar. Subsequently, Aadiyappa repurchased the land from T Sudhakar on 20.06.1977.

3. Out of the said 4 acres Two acres of land comprised in the said survey number was sold by Aadiyappa along with his sons to Virupakshappa and the remaining 2 acres was sold to one Maheswarappa on the very same day by executing registered sale deeds.

4. During his lifetime Aadiyappa filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere seeking restoration of the land contending interalia that the sale made by him was in violation of the provisions of the SC ST (PTCL) Act, inasmuch as without obtaining prior permission from the State Government the sale had been effected. On 16.11.1995 respondent No.3 the Assistant Commissioner issued an endorsement informing the petitioner that the transaction pertaining to the land in question did not come under the preview of provisions of SCST PTCL Act. Petitioners again persuaded the authorities to take up the application and to consider the request for restoration. After hearing both parties, on 31.01.2014 the Assistant Commissioner passed an order rejecting the application filed seeking restoration. This order is produced at Annexure ‘N’. This order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner.

5. The Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter to the third respondent directing him to examine if really there was any sale transaction that was effected on 10.04.1974 followed by another transaction dated 20.06.1977. After remand petitioner produced before the Assistant Commissioner document issued by the Sub Registrar showing that there was no sale transaction registered in respect of Sy.No.202 between 1970 to 1980.

6. The Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 15.04.2016 found that provisions of the Act were not violated as the first sale had been made in the year 1974, after the non alienation period of 15 years. When this was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there was indeed a sale deed dated 10.04.1974 which was executed by the father of petitioner in favour of one T Sudhakar, as was evident from the documents secured from the concerned Sub Registrar. The Deputy Commissioner has held that first sale deed by the father of the petitioner was effected after expiry of 15 years non alienation period from the date of grant and therefore there was no violation of any conditions of grant or the relevant rules in existence at that time regarding non alienation. He has further found that assertion made by the applicant/grantee stating that there was no sale executed on 10.04.1974 was false and baseless.

7. In so far as the contention urged that without prior permission the said sale deed dated 10.04.1974 could not have been executed, the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that prior permission was not required for the first sale as the same had taken place prior to the Act came into force. The other fact which has been adverted to and considered by the Deputy Commissioner is that though father of petitioner repurchased the property in the year 1977 and subsequently sold the same again on 4.12.1995 the said sale did not fall