ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Writ petitioner claims to be a financier who had lent some money in favour of a person who was a purchaser of land that had been originally granted in favour of a scheduled caste person and subject to certain conditions. The land in question was subject-matter of proceedings before the Authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, at the instance of the grantee or legal heir of the grantee for setting aside the transfer of the land for resumption of the same to the State and restoration to the applicant. It appears pursuant to that application an Order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the Order dated 15-11- 2003 (copy at Annexure-E).
2. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had instituted a civil suit for recovery of the amount that he had lent in favour of the purchaser-respondent 4 in this writ petition in O.S. No. 12 of 1993 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Hunsur. It is also the further version of the petitioner that the said suit was decreed and the petitioner was in the process of executing the decree. It is at this stage that the petitioner had realised that the land against which the proceedings were sought to be taken for execution of the decree was no more available with the judgment-debtor that the land had been resumed in favour of the State and restored to the applicant claiming under the grantee.
3. It is also the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner having come to know the said fact, gave a representation/application to the Assistant Commissioner inter alia pointing out that the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner was as a result of practice of fraud or deception on the part of the applicant claiming under the grantee; that the Order is required to be set aside etc., and the petitioner should be permitted to realise the fruits of his decree.
4. The respondent-Assistant Commissioner it appears has issued an endorsement dated 17-1-2004 inter alia pointing out that the subject-matter land was the subject-matter of the proceedings in No. PTCL. CR. 59: 01-02, dated 15-11-2003 and as per the order, the transfer of the land i.e., the sale deed in favour of the judgment-debtor had been annulled for contravention of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978; that the land had been directed to be re-granted in favour of the legal heirs of Kenchaiah, the original grantee; that in view of such Order having already been passed, there was no occasion for the Assistant Commissioner to entertain the application/representation from the petitioner.
5. It appears the petitioner thereafter has obtained a copy of the Order dated 15-11-2003 (copy at Annexure-E) and seeks to challenge this Order before this Court by filing the present writ petition.
6. Sri M. V. Hosakoti, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner are vitiated by the fraud played by the applicant who had claimed that he was a legal heir of the original grantee; that there was nothing wrong with the transaction of sale in favour of the judgment-debtor in whose favour the petitioner had financed certain amount; that the Order is required to be set aside and the petitioner enabled to execute the decree to proceed against the land for realisation of the same and reap the fruits of the decree.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in the alternative submits that this Court should permit the petitioner to file an application before the Deputy Commissioner before whom appeal is said to be pending at the instance of the judgment-debtor and to enable the petitioner also to participate in the appeal said to be pending before the Deputy Commissioner.
8. Either submission is misconceived and untenable. Even a purchaser of the land if loses rights under the sale deed in respect of the land that had been granted in favour of a scheduled caste person subject to certain conditions if the said sale was in violation of the condition or without obtaining necessary permission from the Government, a person like the petitioner who is a financier or who is a person who has obtained a decree as against such buyer of the land cannot claim any right much less any better right than the purchaser himself. It is also not open to a person like the petitioner to describe the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner as one vitiated by practice of fraud by the applicant. The argument for relief based on such submission is ridiculous to say the least.
9. Insofar as the request for permitting the petitioner to file an application is not the function of this Court to permit the persons like the petitioner to either interfere or intervene in proceedings before other Authorities. This Court neither curtails the right of such persons have nor confers any rights which the person does not have, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer is totally misconceived and not one which can be acceded. What action the petitioner wants to take is his own concern and it is not the function of this Court to advise such persons as to what course of action they are required or are entitled to take in law. The petition is a frivolous one and more a misuse of the process of this Court in writ jurisdiction.
10. Learned Government Pleader on whom an advance copy of the writ petition had been served submits that the petition is totally untenable and not maintainable.
11. Writ petition is dismissed levying cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the petitioner. Cost to be remitted in favour of the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and receipt produced before the registry within four weeks from today.