ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Writ petition by a person who had been granted an extent of 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 14 (New No. 74) of Hoskote Village, Kolala Hobli, Koratagere Taluk in Tumkur District and whose efforts to get back the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the Act’), claiming benefits under this Act for persons like him, as he had parted the land in favour of the father of the third respondent in the year 1963 through a sale deed, is yet to fructify.
2. Petitioner though promptly invoked the provisions of the Act immediately on this Act coming into force and had filed an application under Section 5 of the Act in the year 1979 itself, unfortunately, the proceedings refused to come to a close and the petitioner continues to run from pillar to post to get the benefits that he became entitled to under the Act and in terms of the order dated 6-2-1981 passed by the Assistant Commissioner as that was also an order with a left handed compliment.
3. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 9-11-1998, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E to the writ petition, purporting to have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his appellate power under Section 5-A of the Act, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 7-9-1994 that had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner purporting to be an order on an enquiry under Section 5 of the Act in respect of the application of the petitioner.
4. Under the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner for the reason that according to Appellate Authority and in terms of the law laid down by this Court, in the context of Rule 29-A of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, a sale in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste is saved, though it is in violation of other conditions etc., of the grant order and therefore the Assistant Commissioner could not have invalidated the sale transaction of the year 1964, as the father of the third respondent-purchaser was also a person belonging to Scheduled Caste.
5. It is aggrieved by this order that the petitioner who thought that he had succeeded before the Assistant Commissioner in the proceedings in terms of the order dated 7-9-1994, is before this Court praying for quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and for restitution of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
6. The proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner in appeal under Annexure-E as also the order dated 7-9-1994, though a copy of this is not produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition, a xerox copy of the order is placed before the Court by the learned Government Pleader, which order I have gone through, are both orders which are a fraud on the powers conferred on these authorities under the statutory provisions. The order of the Assistant Commissioner is clearly in disregard of the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 27-7-1988 passed in W.P. No. 11069 of 1984, a writ petition which had come to be allowed and at the instance of the very petitioner, with a specific direction to the Assistant Commissioner to ensure that the land in question which had been forfeited in favour of the State Government in terms of his order dated 6-2-1981, was not a valid order and it was quashed to the extent of forfeiture and the Assistant Commissioner was required to restitute the land in favour of the petitioner-applicant in terms of the provisions of the Act.
7. This Court had passed this order in the writ petition as when the petitioner had applied to the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the order dated 6-2-1981 though had found that the transaction of the year 1963 was one in violation of the terms of the grant and therefore required to be invalidated, nevertheless, for some other reasons, while forfeited the land in favour of the State, declined to restitute the land in favour of the applicant grantee and it was against such an order, the petitioner had approached this Court even when the purchaser was alive at that time and who had not pursued the matter any further.
8. It was at the instance of the petitioner this Court had passed the order setting aside the offending portion of the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 6-2-1981 and had issued directions. This aspect of the matter is very clear on a reading of paras 4 and 5 of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 11069 of 1984, which reads as under:
“4. The main contention of Sri Raghavaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that the Assistant Commissioner, the 2nd respondent having held that the sale of the granted land in violation of the condition of grant, was null and void, should have restored the land in favour of the petitioner as provided under Section 5 of the Act. He was in error in forfeiting the land to the Government and directing the Tahsildar to dispose of the land, in accordance with Land Grant Rules.
On a perusal of the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner, it is clear that he has taken cognizance of the facts of the case and recorded his finding that there had been contravention of condition of grant while transferring the granted land in favour of respondent 3. It is not open to say that the applicant being a teacher he could not have sold the land out of ignorance. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that the authority must pass an order restoring the granted land in favour of the applicant, if the authority is satisfied that the transfer of the land granted was in contravention of condition of grant. When the Assistant Commissioner held that there was contravention of the condition of grant and that therefore, the sale was null and void, he should have restored the land to the original grantee. There was no impediment for him to do so, when the grantee himself approached for reliefs under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.
5. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order insofar as it relates to the forfeiture of the land to the Government is quashed. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to pass an order according to Section 5 of the Act. Parties to bear their own costs”.
9. When the matter went back to the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant, Commissioner instead of confining to the role assigned to him in terms of the remand order by this Court, got active, enlarged his jurisdiction as though he was considering the application afresh for the first time, held an enquiry and yet again passed the order dated 7-9-1994, which though is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, was wholly unwarranted. The Assistant Commissioner yet again invalidated the transaction and directed resumption in favour of the State and this time in view of the direction, issued but this Court in the writ petition, ordered for restitution of the land to the. grantee.
10. Third respondent promptly filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner under the impugned order by giving a fantastic, untenable and irrelevant reasoning, has allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and that is how the petitioner is yet again before this Court seeking for the relief to get over the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
11. While the exercise of power or jurisdiction by the Assistant Commissioner pursuant to the remand order by this Court is in itself transgression of the limit of the power and in contravention of the direction issued by this Court, entertaining of a further appeal against this order by the Deputy Commissioner and allowing such appeal by giving such untenable, irrelevant, reasons is compounding the dereliction on the part of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has only improved upon the same in the negative direction by his mindless order.
12. I have heard Sri Parikshit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bharamagouda B. Goudar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the statutory authorities and Sri Kempegowda, learned Counsel for the third respondent.
13. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is clearly unsustainable, both on legal principle as also as it was not a valid appeal in terms of Section 5-A of the Act. In the first instance the Assistant Commissioner had no business to go beyond the scope of the remand order passed by this Court, there was no occasion for him to hold any enquiry for invalidating the sale transaction yet again, but his role should have been confined to restitution of the land in favour of the applicant-grantee. The Deputy Commissioner having unnecessarily exercised his appellate power, the order is unsustainable.
14. Insofar as the third respondent is concerned, the order dated 6-8-1981 passed by the Assistant Commissioner concluded the proceedings against him insofar as the nature of the sale transaction of the year 1963 was concerned, and the third respondent having not carried the matter any further, can never derive any benefit pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition at the instance of the petitioner-grantee, as the remand order was for the limited purpose of restitution of the land and for the benefit of the petitioner and such a remand order does not enlarge the scope of the enquiry before the Assistant Commissioner for passing any order in favour of the third respondent nor the Deputy Commissioner could have entertained an appeal or passed orders in favour of the third respondent, at any rate adverse to the interest of the petitioner.
15. In the circumstance, the authorities have not merely abused their powers to the detriment of the petitioner whose woes and travails continue to remain without redressal but only to the benefit of the third respondent. The third respondent has to necessarily compensate the petitioner for such misdeeds.
16. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-E is hereby quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is restored.
17. It is made clear that the Assistant Commissioner should take immediate steps for recovery of possession of the land from the third respondent forthwith by issuing necessary notice in accordance with law and ensure compliance within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that the proceedings insofar as the validity of the transaction is concerned had been concluded long back and there is no scope for reopening such proceedings time and again whether by way of an appeal or in any other manner.
18. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner both, who are statutory authorities functioning under the Act, having acted far beyond the role assigned to them in terms of the order dated 27-7-1988 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 11069 of 1984, acted in gross dereliction of duty and in contravention of the directions of this Court and are required to be dealt with suitably. A direction is, therefore, issued to the Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka, to hold an enquiry as against these two persons who had held offices of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner at the relevant time and who had passed the orders dated 7-9-1994 and 9-11-1998 respectively and take such necessary action as is warranted in law. However, it is noticed that they have acted in clear dereliction of duties and in gross disregard of the directions that had been issued by this Court in terms of the order dated 27-7-1988 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 11069 of 1984 and this observation by this Court should be noted in their service record.
19. Writ petition is allowed accordingly imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) payable by the third respondent to the petitioner, which should be paid by the third respondent within a period of 30 days from today, failing which on an application made by the petitioner, the Registry shall issue a certificate for recovery of this amount as a decree of the Civil Court.
20. Rule made absolute.