( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged and has sought for grant of a writ of certiorari or any other suitable Order or direction as the court may deem fit to quash the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 namely, assistant commissioner, mandya and the deputy commissioner, mandya district, mandya, in case No. Stl. 5/89-90, dated 26-2-1991 and Order in appeal ptcl 44 (a)/90-91, dated 3-12-1993. Copies of orders have been annexed as annexures-a and b respectively to the writ petition. Petitioner has further prayed that this court should hold this alienation made in favour of the petitioner of survey No. 242 measuring 1 acre of manigere village, maddur taluk. Mandya district, are not void under the provisions of the ACT and for grant of other reliefs.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in nut-shell are that according to the petitioner, who claims himself to be the purchaser of 2 acres of land of survey No. 242, old survey No. 153 of the village, is in possession of the said land and had purchased the said land by the sale deed dated 12-6-1958 for valuable consideration and the petitioner along with his brother was put in possession of the land. The petitioner has further alleged that under sale deed birth his brother and himself were put in possession of the land and thereafter there was a family partition amongst the brethren and one acre of that property had fallen to the share of this brother and the other had gone to the other brother and thus vide the sale deed dated 12-6-1958, two acres of land was purchased. An application under Section 5 was made by the first respondent to the assistant commissioner, under Section 5 of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978, claiming alienation made in favour of petitioner and his brother to be void under the provisions of the ACT 2 of 1979 and sought restoration of the land transferred under the sale deed meaning thereby two acres of land that was transferred under the sale deed dated 12-6- 1958. No doubt in the petition it has been represented and stated that respondent 1 claimed restoration of one acre of land. This is a mistake. Really restoration of the land under the sale deed dated 12-6-1958 was claimed. That is the land which the two brethren had equally partitioned later on. The petitioner has stated that the petitioner's brother had filed objections before the 2nd respondent disputing the claim of the 1st respondent and it is stated that the petitioner has contended in his objection that alienation was not in contravention of the ACT and there was no prohibition to transfer of the said land. The copy of the objection filed by the two brethren has not been annexed to the writ petition. Anyway in the writ petition no doubt it has been contended that grant was not free grant but it was for up-set price and when the grant was for an upset price there could be no prohibition of alienation since such grant amounts to absolute alienation in favour of the grantee. Further by means of long enjoyment of the land in its own rights it is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has perfected title by adverse possession and such title cannot be defeated under the provisions of the act. It is nowhere stated in the course of the writ petition that this was the case pleaded by the objector-petitioner before the assista. it commissioner. But so far as this part of the allegation is concerned, there is no such allegation that this was also pleaded before the authority that land was not a free grant nor it is stated in the petition on oath that petitioner had also pleaded the right or accrual of title by adverse possession. It appears to be subsequent development and product of ingenuity of the learned counsel appearing before the high court, the petitioner has not filed the copy of the objections. So it appears, if the plea would have been taken he would have filed the objections. Anyway, the assistan