The central legal point established in the judgment is that alienations of granted land in contravention of the conditions provided under the rules are null and void.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order made by the assistant commissioner at Annexure 'a' and also another order made earlier at Annexure 'b' and he has sought for quashing the same. Indeed, the petitioner has also sought for quashing the order of the deputy commissioner in the appeal at Annexure 'c for the reasons set out in the writ petition.

( 2 ) A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are asfollows: small piece of land measuring 2 acres 12 guntas in sy. No. 89/10 of belagumba village, kasaba hobli, arsikere taluk, hassan district, came to be granted in favour of marigaiah, husband of the petitioner by the competent authority under the Mysore land grant rules by an order made on 17-11-1947, subject to certain conditions. One such condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land to any person at any time. The fact remains that out of granted land, 1 acre came to be sold in favour of late T. S. lingappa, 3rd respondent herein by a registered sale deed dated 8-10-1970, and the remaining granted land came to be sold in favour of the 4th respondent-chikkanna, by a registered sale deed dated 26-8-1971, for valuable consideration. Thus, 2 acres 12 guntas of land came to be alienated in their favour. Accordingly the purchasers have been enjoying the land in question from the dates of sale.

( 3 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), suo motu action was taken by the assistant commissioner, hassan sub-division, 2nd respondent herein, in proceedings No. Lnd SC and ST 78 (ask) 87:1979-80. These proceedings came to be initiated based upon the report sent up by the tahsildar on 18-8-1979. After initiating the proceedings suo motu, the assistant commissioner proceeded to pass an order on 22nd may, 1980, as per Annexure 'b'. In that order all that the assistant commissioner stated was that the granted land came to be sold after the expiry of 15 years. Therefore, there was no need for taking further action the matter.

( 4 ) BY referring to the averments made in the writ petition it is seen that, according to the petitioner Smt. Ramamma, widow of late marigaiah, her husband marigaiah, original grantee, died and passed away some time in the year 1978, and she was not aware of the proceedings before the assistant commissioner when Annexure 'b' came to be passed. She had no opportunity to participate in the enquiry held by the assistant commissioner.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that marigaiah-original grantee was alive when the impugned order Annexure 'b' came to be passed on 22nd may, 1980, as he died and passed away later. This is not material for the purpose of disposing of this matter. What is important is the procedure adopted by the assistant commissioner, while conducting proceedings under sections 4 and 5 of the act. I will come to the question of law and procedure adopted by the deputy commissioner a little later.

( 6 ) THE case of the petitioner is that she had no notice of the proceedings beforethe assistant commissioner culminating in the impugned order made in the month of may, 1980, that she further made an application before the assistant commissioner, in the year 1988, seeking benefit of the act on the ground that the granted land was sold by her husband during his life time in contravention of the conditions of the grant and that therefore she was entitled for the relief.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to her, the assistant commissioner, without holding a proper enquiry and without giving her opportunity of being heard, has given an endorsement, Annexure 'a', dated 26-9-1989, which reads as follows:aggrieved by this endorsement of the assistant commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal before the deputy commissioner, hassa