Judgment

N.P. SINGH, J.- Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant, for setting aside an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, rejecting the claim of the appellant, that, being in possession over the lands in dispute for more than 12 years, he had perfected his title by prescription, as such there was no scope for restoring the lands to the respondent concerned, in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act".

3. According to the appellant, the father of Respondent 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent") was granted 4 acres of land in Village Karakachi on 29-3-1957 by the State of Karnataka, with the condition that he shall not alienate the said land for a period of 15 years from the date of the grant. However, the father of the said respondent transferred 2 acres 20 guntas out of the 4 acres in favour of one Ismail Saheb by a registered sale deed dated 24-4-1965 i.e. before the expiry of the period of 15 years. The said Ismail Saheb in his turn transferred the said land in favour of the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 20-7-1979. The appellant claims to be in peaceful possession of the said land. He also claims to have invested huge sum in the development and cultivation and construction of a residential house over the land in question.

4. The Act aforesaid came into force from 1-1-1979, the primary object of which is to declare the transfer of any granted land, made either before or after the commencement of the said Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant null and void. It vests power in Assistant Commissioner, if he is satisfied, that the transfer of any granted land was null and void, to take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof, in such manner as may be prescribed and to restore such land to the original grantee or to his legal heir. As in the instant case, admittedly, the father of the respondent had alienated the land, granted to him, in contravention of the terms of the grant, inasmuch as before the expiry of the period of 15 years, on an application, being filed on behalf of the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, declared by an order dated 13-5-1988, the alienation of the land aforesaid as null and void and directed restoration of land to the respondent being the heir of the original grantee.

5. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal, filed on behalf of the appellant. The writ application, filed on behalf of the appellant, was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court was of the view that in order to defeat the claim of the respondent, the appellant had to prove adverse possession over the land in question not only for a period of 12 years but for a period of 30 years i.e. the period prescribed in respect of the lands belonging to the State Government. This was based on an order passed by this Court in the case of Sunkara Rajayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka{(1985) 1 Scale 445}.

6. It may be mentioned that earlier several writ applications had been filed before the High Court of Karnataka, questioning the constitutional validity of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act aforesaid, which were dismissed by the High Court. This Court in the case of Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka{(1984) 3 SCC 301} examined the different provisions of the Act, as to whether they were violative of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 (which were then in force) or Articles 14 and 31-A. It was held that the provisions were constitutionally valid and there was no infirmity because the object of the Act was speedy restoration of granted lands to the members of the weaker communities i .e. members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Having rejected the challenge to the validity of the provisions of the Act, it was said:

"Though we have come to the conclusion that the Act is valid, yet, in our opinion, we have to mak