M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) ALTHOUGH this writ petition is posted for preliminary hearing in B-Group, by consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition was taken for hearing. Accordingly, i heard the learned counsel on both sides.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have called in question the correctness and legality of the orders made by the Dy. Commissioner and the Asst. Commissioner at Annexures-B and C respectively. They have sought for quashing them on more than one ground.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts as disclosed from the impugned order as well as the pleadings in the writ petition are; By an order made by the Competent Authority on 29-12-1959, 5 acres of land came to be granted in Sy. No. 5 of Kyatanamale Village in Parashurampura Hobli, Chitradurga Dist. , in favour of the first petitioner, Macchappa, applying the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, subject to certain conditions.- One such condition was that the granted land shall not be alienated by the grantee for a period of 15 years. Despite the said condition the granted land came to be sold in favour of the first respondent - Hanumanna, by a registered sale deed dated 24-8-1977 for a valuable consideration.

( 4 ) IT is stated that eversince the date of sale of the land in favour of the first respondent, he is in enjoyment of the said land undisturbed.

( 5 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, ('the Act' for short), the first petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner with an application for the relief under the said Act. His case was that since the granted land came to be sold in contravention of the condition of the grant, the Assistant Commissioner shall declare the alienation as null and void and restore the - granted land in his favour. The Assistant Commissioner, having heard both the parties, held an enquiry in case No. SC PTL 3/1988-89. During the course of the enquiry, he provided opportunity to both the parties, recorded their evidence and after considering the same, passed the order, Annexure-B, holding that there was a condition imposed in the Saguvali Chit issued by the granting authority, that granted land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years, and that in contravention of the said condition, the land came to be sold before the expiry of that period, thus he declared the sale as null and void and directed restoration of the land to the original grantee.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, respondent purchaser took up the matter before the Deputy Commissioner in appeal under Section 5-A of the Act. The D. C. after hearing both the learned counsel, passed an order, Annexure-C, in reversal of the order of the Asst. Commissioner on the sole ground that the conclusion of the Asst. Commissioner that the period of non-alienation imposed in the grant was 15 years, was incorrect. According to him, it was 10 years as the grant was on payment of upset price and the alienation having - taken place after the period of 10 years, it was valid.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel who took me through the impugned orders, Annexures-Band C, submitted that the interpretation of non-alienation clause by the Deputy commissioner was wrong. He further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner was in error in following the ruling of this Court in Onkarappa v Sanna Neelappa, 1990 (1) Kar. L. J. 54 : ILR 1990 (1) Kar. 727 as the learned Judge who disposed of the onkarappa's. case, failed to notice the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in lakshmamma v State of Karnataka, 1983 (1) Kar. L. J. 417. Indeed the argument is that, had the Deputy Commissioner noticed the ruling in Lakshmamma's case, where the. Division Bench has interpreted the provisions of the rule relating to imposition of condition against alienation of the land granted under the Karnataka land Grant Rules for the purpose of understanding the - correct period of non-alienation perhaps, the Deput

Click Here to Read the rest of this document