ORDER

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

02.01.2023 vide Annexure-Q passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 21.04.2023 vide Annexure-R passed by respondent No.4, has filed the present writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

The petitioner belongs to backward community. The mother-in-law of the petitioner late Muthamma W/o Chillaiah was the original grantee of darkasth land bearing in Sy.No.201 (old Sy.No.46) measuring 2 acres situated at Obalapura village, Tyamagondalu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. The said land was leased to the ancestor's of petitioner under "Grow More Food" Scheme. Later on, as per the official memorandum lease was confirmed in favour of the original grantee by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. After paying an upset price, grant certificate was issued to the original grantee on 01.05.1963 by the Tahsildar. The original grantee died and after his demise, the granted property was mutated in the name of legal heirs of original grantee and the revenue records continued in his name. On 07.08.2010, Poojanarshaih who is the S/o original grantee Muthamma and his family members executed the register sale deed in favour of B.H.Ramesh, with respect to granted land. Respondent No.5 - KIADB acquired the land belongs to original grantee under Sections 28 (1) and (4) of the KIADB Act, the land in question was acquired by respondent No.5. The petitioner being legal heir of the original grantee filed a petition under PTCL Act before respondent No.3 alleging that the sale transaction is in contravention of provision of PTCL Act. The respondent No.3 dismissed the application vide Annexure-Q. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 vide order dated 21.04.2023 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.3. The petitioner aggrieved by the order vide Annexures - Q and R, has filed this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Sri. Ravi B. Naik, learned senior counsel for Smt. Vijetha R. Naik, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was granted to Muthamma W/o Chillaiah, as he belongs to depressed class under 'Grow More Food' Scheme. The sale transaction is in violation of conditions of grant and provisions of PTCL Act. The said aspect was not considered by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and proceeded to pass the impugned orders. He further submits that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 are arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondent No.7 submits that, the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.12748/2011 disposed of on 25.02.2022 in the case of NANJAMMA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS. He submits that the land granted on lease under 'Grow More Food' Scheme does not fall within the definition of 'granted land'. He submits that admittedly in the instant case the land in question was granted under 'Grow More Food' Scheme and the land in question is not a granted land. The said aspect was rightly considered by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and passed impugned orders. Hence he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned orders and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is not in dispute that the land in question was taken under 'Grow More Food' Scheme and thereafter the said lease was confirmed in favour of a grantee at an upset price of Rs.100/- per acre as per Annexure-A and certificate w