S.G. Pandit, J. - Aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16831 of 2013, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.PTCL(CHIKK)- 56/2006-07 dated 05.04.2010 passed by the second respondent and order bearing No.RA(SC/ST) 3/2010-11 dated 17.10.2012 passed by the first respondent. The petitioner claims that he purchased the land bearing Old Sy.No.404 and New Sy.No.437 measuring 3 acres situated at Yelagalahalli, Mandikal Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk from the father of the third respondent under sale deed dated 07.08.1992. The third respondent claims that he belongs to Adi-Karnataka Scheduled Caste Community. Further it is stated that the father of the third respondent Sri.Giddappa was granted the land in question in the year 1956-57 and on grant, name of the petitioners father was shown in pursuance of the M.R.No.249-28/57-58 dated 09.04.1957. The third respondents father was illiterate. Taking advantage of the same, the petitioner got executed the sale deed dated 07.08.1992. The third respondent herein filed an application on 10.11.2006 before the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short the PTCL Act) for resumption of the lands. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and filed her objections contending that there was no violation of any condition while the father of the third respondent transferred the land in her favour. The provisions of PTCL Act would not attract the present case. It was also contended that the petition was barred by time. The Assistant Commissioner-second respondent noting the contentions of the parties that the land was granted at free of cost to the third respondents father Giddappa, held that the sale which took place on 07.08.1992 as null and void and restored the possession of the land to the third respondent with a condition not to alienate the land for a period of 25 years. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner contending that there is no violation of the conditions of grant, while the father of the third respondent transferred the land in question to the petitioner since there was no non-alienation clause. It was also contended in the appeal that the petition was barred by time. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 17.10.2012 confirmed the order passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition contending that the authorities below proceeded to pass the impugned orders without looking into the records, particularly the grant order and the relevant documents. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the rival contentions by his order dated 10.04.2013 dismissed the writ petition holding that the sale which took place on 07.08.1992, after commencement of the PTCL Act is in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and rejected the contention of the petitioner that it is not a granted land. Therefore, the petitioner is in appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for the third respondent. Perused the appeal papers.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is wholly erroneous and contrary to the material on record. It is contended that the authorities below proceeded to pass the impugned orders without looking into the grant order and without considering as to whether there was any non-alienation clause prohibiting the sale. The authorities and the learned Single Judge failed to find out as to the nature of the grant to come to the conclusion, whether the provisions of the PTCL Act would have any application. The learned counsel further would contend that there is inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act and the learned Single Judge failed to examine the same.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 would submit that the land in question is a granted land to the father of the third respondent-Giddappa who belonged to Scheduled Caste community. Hence he submits that any sale which has taken place after coming into force of PTCL Act would be null and void and the orders passed by the authorities below are just and proper. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the first and second respondents looking into the records have rightly passed the orders.

6. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge requires to be interfered with. It is claimed that the father of the third respondent was granted land in Old Sy.No.404 new Sy.No.437 measuring an extent of 3 acres situated at Yelagalahalli, Chikkaballapur Taluk under DCD No.38/1956-57. The third respondents father was in possession and enjoyment of the granted land. On 07.08.1992, the father of the third respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner for valuable consideration in respect of the land stated above. The third respondent claiming to be the son of Giddappa initiated proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act to restore the land in his favour. On going through the order passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner, it is seen that after noting the contentions of the parties without assigning any reason has held that sale which has taken place on 07.08.1992 in respect of the land in question as null and void and restored the land to the third respondent with a condition not to sell the land for a period of 25 years. Before the second respondent- Assistant Commissioner, the third respondent has neither produced the Grant Certificate nor Saguvali Chit to indicate the non-alienation clause. The Assistant Commissioner records that the grant is for free of cost which is noticed by him from the copy of mutation and copy of Darkasth. Further the Assistant Commissioner notes that the Saguvali Chit is not produced since it was not available. The third respondent has produced endorsement issued by the Tahsildar dated 03.12.2006 wherein he has stated that there is no file relating to the grant, hence, there is no provision to issue copy of the Saguvali Chit.

7. In the absence of Saguvali Chit or the Grant Certificate, the Assistant Commissioner could not have come to the conclusion that there is violation of nonalienation clause. The grant according to the third respondent is in the year 1956-57 whereas the sale has taken place in the year 1992. Therefore, without there being any document to show the non-alienation clause, the Assistant Commissioner could not have held that there is violation of non-alienation clause. The Deputy Commissioner in the appeal filed by the petitioner, merely noting the contentions of the parties confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. There is no finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner with regard to violation of conditions of grant.

8. Section 4 of the PTCL Act reads as follows:

"4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands:

(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.

(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government.

(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority."

9. From the reading of the above provision, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner shall record contravention of the terms of grant and thereafter based on the material shall come to the conclusion that whether any transfer of granted land is null and void. When the nature of grant itself is in doubt or disputed, the authorities have to satisfy themselves as to the nature of grant and the person to whom the grant is made and also the conditions laid down for grant. A duty is cast upon the authority i.e., Assistant Commissioner to look into the records, such as Grant Certificate, Saguvali Chit or Dharkast Register etc., and then come to a conclusion as to whether there is violation of any conditions of grant. Merely looking to the mutation entry, the Assistant Commissioner could not have come to the conclusion that there is violation of conditions of grant. The Assistant Commissioner in the instant case, only on the basis of copy of mutation has recorded a finding that there is violation of condition of non-alienation clause and no permission has been obtained for sale as required under the PTCL Act. It is necessary to examine the records and only after examination of records the Assistant Commissioner could have recorded finding on facts as well as law. From the records, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have given finding as to whether the land in question attracts PTCL provision and whether there is violation of any condition of grant. Therefore in our considered view, the Assistant Commissioner has failed to record a finding looking into the entire record pertaining to the grant and has committed an error in holding that there is violation of conditions of grant. The learned Single Judge without examining as to whether there are sufficient materials to come to the conclusion that the land is a granted land, merely noting that it is too late in the day for the petitioner to contend that the land in question is not a granted land, dismissed the writ petition, which is wholly erroneous.

10. Therefore, we set aside the order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge; the order dated 05.04.2010 passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner as well as the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both the sides and looking into the entire record, including the grant records.

Ordered accordingly.