JUDGMENT :

R. Devdas, J.

The petitioner, a purchaser of the land in question is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the order passed by 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner and directed resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee Smt.Venkatamma.

2. The petitioner herein purchased two acres and two guntas of land in Sy.No.153/5, situated at Herohalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Respondent No.4- Sri.Ramaiah filed an application before the 3rd respondent- Assistant Commissioner seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 13.12.2006 wherein two acres and two guntas of land out of 3 acres and 3 guntas of land which was sold in favour of the petitioner herein is null and void since originally the land was granted in favour of Smt. Venkatamma who belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community and the sale deed is in contravention of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for short), there being no previous permission obtained from the State Government before the land could be transferred. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, on perusing a copy of the grant certificate which was produced by the petitioner herein, came to a conclusion that although the grant was made under the Darkhast Rules, on 29.05.1926 and grant certificate was issued on 06.06.1926, about 23 acres of 13 guntas of land in various Survey numbers of Herohalli Village were put to public auction since the said lands were resumed by the government for non-payment of tax, in terms of Darkhast Rules. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to hold that the lands were auctioned for market value and therefore, the land cannot be considered as a granted land.

3. Respondent No.4 herein approached the Spl. Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section 5A of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner noticed that the applicant has produced copies of caste certificate, IL, RR, Register Extract, Preliminary record, RTC, showing the name of the appellant, along with Mutation Register Extract, Genealogical Tree, Original Survey Tippani and Re-survey Tippani, Hissa Survey Tippani, IL copy, etc. The Deputy Commissioner held that the Assistant Commissioner was required to hold a formal enquiry in the manner laid down in Section 33 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 but no formal enquiry was held. While citing some decisions of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner held that the burden to prove that, grant was for an upset price or for reduced upset price was on the purchaser of the land and when the purchaser failed to plead and discharge his burden before the Authority, he cannot be permitted to raise an issue before the Appellate Authority. Further the Deputy Commissioner holds that since admittedly no prior permission was taken by the purchaser or the legal heirs of the original grantee before transferring the rights with respect to the granted lands, in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act, there is a clear violation of Section 4(2) of the Act and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner directed resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. Being aggrieved, the purchaser/petitioner is before this Court.

4. Sri. B. S. Raghuprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of Apex Court in the case of B.K. MUNIRAJU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2008) AIR SC 14383, to contend that the Authorities were required to look into the records and find out whether the grant was infact a grant or a sale made under public auction for a price. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely because the documents is styled as "Grant C