ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 19.9.1990 made in WA No. 494/90. The admitted facts are that the respondents 4 and 5, by name Doddaramaiah and Chikkaramaiah, sons of late Gurappa of Bangalore were granted five acres of agricultural land under Rule 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code on February 13, 1940 for use and enjoyment of the Government land. Rule 43(8) reads as under :

"Occupancies granted to applicants belonging to Depressed Classes under Rule 43(5) above and those granted by Government free of upset price or reduced upset price to poor and landless people of other communities or to religious charitable institutions, shall not be alienated and the grantees shall execute Mutchalikas in the form prescribed by Government. This shall not, however, prevent lands granted to Depressed classes under Rule 43(5) being accepted as security for any loan which they may wish to obtain from Government or from a Co-operative Society for the bonafide purposes of improving the land."

3. A reading of the said rule would indicate that with a view to augment of economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Castes and other weaker sections of the society, Government may assigne the land to them or to cooperative societies composed of them. It is not in dispute that the appellant had purchased the land from the assignees under a registered sale deed on December 19, 1958. The Karnataka Legislature enacted Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Schedules Tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the "Act") declaring alienation by the assignee-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as void and inoperative. Procedure has been prescribed for restoration of the lands and assignees or if they are not available, the land resumed be assigned to eligible persons from those classes. In furtherance thereof, the respondents 4 & 5 filed an application under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act before the competent authority on April 22,1985 for restoration of the land. The competent authority allowed the application which was confirmed on appeal and, therefore, the writ petitions came to be dismissed. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. Sri P.R. Ramasesh, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no prohibition as against the appellant, since he obtained the title after the expiry of ten years from the date of the assignment by the Government. The appellant had perfected title by adverse possession. Therefore, the Act is inapplicable to such a situation. In support of his contention, he sought to place reliance on the judgment of this Court in K. T. Huchegowda v. Deputy Commissioner & Ors.1

5. Sri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that the appellant had not pleaded adverse possession as against the State. He came into possession by virtue of a title obtained from respondents 4 and 5. The sale is void and against the public policy. His contention of adverse possession against respondents, though was raised before the primary author ity and the appellate authority and was negatived the same, was not canvassed before the High Court. The only contention raised before the High Court was as to the estoppel which was rightly negatived. Under those circumstances, the ratio of Hochegowdh case (supra) has no application. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on other judgment of this Court in the case of R. Chandevarappa etc. etc. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. etc. etc.2

6. In view of the rival contentions raised on both sides, the questions that arise for consideration are : whether the respondents 5 and 6 who have alienated the land to the appellant are estopped to challenge the sale and whether the sale is valid and also whether appellant perfected his title by adverse possession as against the State ?

7. It is seen that Article 46 of the Constitution,