( 1 ) BY this petition petitioner has sought for writ of certiorari quashing the Order dated 27-1-1997, passed by the deputy commissioner, hassan.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that land bearing sy. No. 19 measuring 4 acres 15 guntas of rangapura kavalu village, kasaba hobli, arsikere taluk, hassan district (hereinafter referred as the land in dispute) was allotted in favour of venkatarama 'bhovi' as also appears from Annexure-A to the writ petition filed by the petitioner. As per Annexure-A the possession was handed over and as referred by Annexure-C also on 19-11-1963. The petitioner had purchased this land from the grantee vide sale deed dated 27-9-1980. It may be mentioned here that the grant was made on 28-5-1963. The grant certificate was issued on 19-11-1963. The assistant commissioner on an application being moved under Section 5 of the ACT 2 of 1979 held that the transfer had been made after the expiry of 15 years during which period non-alienation clause did operate. The assistant commissioner found that the period of 15 years bar came to expire on 19-11-1978 and on that ground rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved from the Order of the assistant commissioner, respondent 3, son of the original grantee filed an appeal and the appellate authority i. e. , the deputy commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the Order of the assistant commissioner and held that the transfer was void because non-alienation clause was of permanent nature and not for a period of 15 years. The deputy commissioner also directed restoration of land in favour of three members i. e. , heirs of grantee. Having felt aggrieved from the Order of the deputy commissioner, the petitioner has come up in writ petition before this court.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri a. v. gangadharappa, counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Shantha kumari, the learned government pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the deputy commissioner was wrong in taking the view that there was permanent bar against alienation. He contended that only 15 years bar was there against alienation and therefore the deputy commissioner was wrong in cancelling the deed on taking a wrong view. Learned counsel further contended that the appellate authority had to record findings on the question whether the grantee did belong to the scheduled caste; whether the land was free grant or it was for full market value but as the findings have not been recorded, the Order in appeal deserves to be quashed, and this court may be pleased to allow the petition and quash the impugned Order and remand the appeal for fresh decision to the appellate authority. The learned counsel emphatically contended that after expiry of 15 years the grantee had vested right to transfer. I invited the attention of the petitioner's counsel to Section 4 (2) of the ACT 2 of 1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submitted that so far as seeking previous permission of the government is concerned, no previous permission either for transfer was sought by the transferor nor was previous permission sought by the alienee-petitioner from the state government to acquire the granted land by transfer. This fairness of the learned counsel is appreciated.

( 4 ) WRIT jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution is to be exercised when no doubt, there is error of law apparent or error of jurisdiction and from there emanates injustice to any party. This court is not bound in every case to interfere under article 226 of the constitution. In the present case the document filed by the petitioner and the description of respondent 3 given in the writ petition itself shows that the grantee belonged to bhovi caste and it is the admitted position between the parties that as regards the State of Karnataka vide schedule relating to scheduled caste, bhovis or bovi's have been shown to belong to scheduled caste community. Reference may be made here to entry 5 of