( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader, Smt. Bharathi nagesh.

( 2 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29-3-1995, passed in case No. Ptch 12 of 1993-94, by the assistant commissioner, in proceedings under Section 5 of the act 2 of 1979, that is scheduled castes/scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1979, whereby the concerned authority declared sale deed dated 4-9-1965, to be null and void under Section 4 (1) and directed the resumption of the land and its restoration in favour of respondent 3. The petitioner has further challenged the order of the appellate authority dated 9-7-1996, passed in appeal No. Ptch 6 of 1995-96, whereby the deputy commissioner has affirmed the order of the assistant commissioner.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case in nut shell are that 2 acres of land (survey No. 156, new No. 360) situated in village badigadi, hariharpura hobli, koppa tq. , had been granted in favour of the father-in-law of the 4th respondent vide. , grant dated 16-12-1958 and the saguvali-chit had been issued on 16-12-1958 and the grantee was put in possession of the land. The grantee vide. , sale deeds dated 4/5-9-1965, transferred the land in favour of the petitioner. The proceedings under Section 5 of act 2 of 1979, had been initiated and after enquiry the assistant commissioner allowed the application by his order dated 29-3-1995, directing the resumption of the land-subject matter of sale deed dated 4-9-1965 and its restoration to the legal representatives of the original grantee. The petitioner-alienee felt aggrieved from the order dated 29-3-1995, preferred appeal before the deputy commissioner and the deputy commissioner dismissed the appeal and rejected the contentions made by the present petitioner-appellant and affirmed the finding and order of the assistant commissioner.

( 4 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the orders impugned, the petitioner has come up before this court. On notice being issued, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. In paragraph-2 of the counter affidavit, respondents have very clearly averred that the land bearing survey No. 360 (old No. 156) measuring 2 acres, situated at bandigadi, koppa taluk, was granted free of cost to rangaiah, father-in-law of respondent 4. The saguvali-chit was issued on 16-12-1958. Petitioner purchased the said land from the original grantee on 5-9-1965. Respondents have averred that Rule 43 (6) (a) (i) framed under the Mysore land revenue code is applicable and according to this Rule, non-alienation period is 15 years and that the sale had taken place within the operative period of non-alienation clause and it was in contravention of the conditions of the grant and as such the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner, rightly decided the case, by allowing the application under Section 5 and by directing the restoration of the land to the legal representatives of the grantee.

( 5 ) IT has also been pleaded in the counter affidavit, that the assistant commissioner is entitled to take suo motu proceedings as well and there is no limitation for exercising suo motu powers and reference has been made to Section 11 of the act as well in the affidavit and on that basis it has been asserted that article 137 of the Limitation Act will not apply.

( 6 ) I have heard petitioner's counsel Sri h. t. narendra prasad, as well as Smt. Shantakumari, learned government pleader for the respondents 1 to 3. Nobody appears on" behalf of respondent 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no finding has been recorded about the nature of the grant. He further contended that as such the order is bad in law. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession and therefore proceedings under Section 4 were not maintainable. As regard the first contention, I have got the order of the assistant com