( 1 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and we have been taken through the relevant case papers.

( 2 ) THE appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 14-11-1991 passed by the learned single judge in writ petition No. 20114 of 1991, allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein.

( 3 ) A detailed narrative of the facts has been given in the order of the learned single judge as well as in the orders made by the deputy commissioner and the assistant commissioner. Hence, it is not necessary for us to repeat the same.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 are brothers and are belonging to the scheduled caste. 5 acres of land in survey No. 5 of kyatanamale village in parashurampur hobli, challakere taluk, chitradurga district, was granted to the first respondent herein by the , competent authority as per the Provisions of the Mysore land revenue rules, subject to certain conditions, vide order No. Hkf. 20 of 1959-60, dated 29-12-1959. The grant certificate was, however, issued on 4-5-1967. The Rule prevailing at the time of the grant with respect to the non-alienation clause was Rule 43-a (3) of the Mysore land revenue rules. That Rule p