The court established the validity of the non-alienation clause for a period of 15 years under Rule 43-G of 1960 Rules under the Mysore Land Revenue Code, and upheld the authorities' decision to declare the alienation as null and void under Section 4 of the Act.

( 1 ) THE matter having been posted today for being spoken, I heard Sri Shivappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagannath, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents-1 and 2. The order made on 1-2-1991 is recalled.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order, Annexure-C, dated 30-4-1985 made by the special Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, chitradurga, respondent-1 herein, in case no. SC PTL (A) 148/1984-85 confirming the order made by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent-2 herein, in case PTL 32/1983-84 dated 25-4-1984 holding that the alienation made by respondent-3 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question was null and void under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the Act for short ).

( 3 ) THE matter arises this way:the undisputed facts as disclosed in the pleadings as well as the impugned orders are that hanumanthappa S/o Kyathappa, respondent-3 herein, was granted 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 47 situated in Dogganal village, Holalkere Taluk, chitradurga District, on 28-10-1963 by the competent authority under the Karnataka Land grant Rules then prevailing in Karnataka, subject to one of the conditions that the granted land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years, and that, however, the said land came to be sold in favour of the petitioner by respondent-3 under a registered sale deed dated 26-12-1976 for a valuable consideration. It is the case of the petitioner that eversince the date of sale, he has been in actual possession and enjoyment thereof.

( 4 ) AFTER coming into force of the Act, respondent-3 approached the Assistant Commissioner, respondent-2 herein, seeking relief under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner having held an enquiry, by his order dated 25-4-1984, allowed the application of respondent-3 declaring that the alienation made in favour of the petitioner was null and void under section 4 of the Act as it was made in contravention of the condition of the Act and thereby directing under Section 5 of the Act restoration of the possession of the land in favour of respondent-3.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy commissioner, respondent-1 herein, who, by his order made as per Annexure-C, dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.

( 6 ) TWO contentions have been urged by Sri Shivappa, learned counsel for the petitioner. They are: (1) the land in question was granted in favour of respondent-3 on payment of upset price and not free of cost and therefore the imposition of the condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years cannot be sustained and (2) since, according to the order of grant, the grant was made on payment of upset price of Rs. 50/- per acre and the said amount had been paid, it must be construed as the market value of the land granted; therefore, the imposition of prohibition of 15 years cannot also prevail. In other words, his contention is that in view of the payment of upset price, the prohibition that can be imposed against alienation is for 10 years; therefore, both the authorities below have wrongly concluded in favour of respondent-3.

( 7 ) DEALING with the first contention, there is no difficulty, at the outset, to point out that the land in question came to be granted in favour of respondent-3 on 28-10-1963. Therefore, the question is whether the imposition of non-alienation clause for a period of 15 years is valid. Indeed, both the Assistant Commissioner and the deputy Commissioner held that the imposition of the condition for a period of 15 years non- alienation was valid. The relevant rule governing the grant in the present case is sub-rule (4) of rule 43-G of 1960 Rules under the Mysore Land revenue Code. It reads:" (4) where the grant is made free of cost or is made at a price wh