( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is a purchaser from the grantee has challenged the orders dated 20-12-1989, passed by the Assistant commissioner, Revenue Sub-Division, Chickmagalur, in proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled castes/scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, 1978 (Act No. 2 of 1979), as well as the order of the deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District passed in Appeal ptl: 60: 89-90, dated 9-7-1991, dismissing the appeal of the alienee and affirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that original grantee Manjaiah, who belonged to "adi Karnataka" community which is one of the Scheduled Caste communities, had been granted land measuring 4 acres 7 guntas of Sy. No. 146, vide, Memo No. SDCPR 5: 53-54, dated 12-12-1953 and in whose favour Saguvali chit has been handed over on 13-10-1954, at the rate of Rs. 2/- for 1 acre 33 guntas and 2 acres 14 guntas were granted at the rate of Rs. 10/- per acre. After the death of Manjaiah, the original grantee, his son, Bettaiah sold the land to one sathyappa vide. , sale deed dated 14-10-1980 and the said sathyappa sold that land to one S. N. Nagendra, vide. , sale deed dated 20-10-1980. Application under Section 5 was made on 27-4-1988 under Section 5 (1) of Act 2 of 1979, by the son of the grantee namely present respondent 1 in the writ. petition for reliefs mentioned under Section 5 of the Act. The Assistant commissioner, namely, respondent 3, allowed the application, after having taken the view that the transfer has not been made after obtaining the permission or approval of the State government and restriction on alienation was without any limit of time, so the transfer made by the grantee as per sale deed dated 14-10-1980, has been null and void and it did not confer title or right to Sathyappa, nor could Sathyappa pass on any rights or title in favour of the present petitioner by deed dated 20-10-1980 and the subsequent deed dated 20-10-1980 was also illegal and inoperative.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner filed the appeal under the Act, and the Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 9-7-1991, dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the order of the assistant Commissioner.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved from the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the present petitioner-vendee, has come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) I have heard Sri Harish Ananthamurthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Shantha Kumari, learned government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the two orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy commissioner suffer from the jurisdictional error and error of law apparent on the face of record. Sri Ananthamurthy contended that the authorities erred in holding that there was no restriction clause indicating the period of restriction relating to non-alienation clause. Sri Ananthamurthy further contended that it is the law either under the statute or the rules operating any restriction on the date of grant provided thereunder, where restriction is restriction, fixed period, or otherwise that will control the transaction of grant. Learned Counsel further contended that the grant was made on 4th August, 1953 and the law or rule applicable on that date, with respect to grant and conditions of grant will be applicable irrespective of the fact that grant or Saguvalichit contains any condition to the contrary. The learned Counsel contended that the grant in this case was made on 12th of December, 1953. Learned Counsel further contended that rules had been amended by the notification issued on 4th of august, 1953 and Rule 43, particularly Clause 8 thereof had been modified and amended and thereunder it has been specifically provided that the l