( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned high Court Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents 3 (a) and (b) and 4.

( 2 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 20. 7. 1991 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South, and the affirmative order dated 29. 4. 2000 passed by the Special Deputy commissioner, Bangalore, rejecting the claim of the petitioner and declaring the sale of the land in dispute in favour of the Respondents 3 and 4 as void and resumption of the land and returning back the same to the petitioner has come up before this Court in the present petition.

( 3 ) AS per the allegations in the petition, in respect of the land survey No. 142 (old No. 22/3) of Suragajakkanahalli village, Anekal taluk, an area of 2 acres was granted to one Doddajulabhovi in the year 1956-57 under the then existing dharkhast (grant) rules, as the said Doddajulabhovi belonged to Schedule Caste. Incidentally the petitioner claims to be the daughter-in-law of the said Doddajulabhovi being the wife of Anjanappa. According to the petitioner, even though this land was granted under the then existing Land Grant Rules, as the sale of this land to the fathers of both Respondents 3 and 4 to an extent of one acre by the sale deeds dated 26. 5. 1975 and 24. 3. 1974 respectively was in violation of the Karnataka Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act (hereinafter referred to as the PTCL Act) and the Land grant Rules, she is entitled for a declaration of these sales as void as well as for resumption of the land and return back possession to her. On such a claim, she approached the Assistant Commissioner. On issuance of notice, the contesting respondents appeared before the Assistant Commissioner inter alia contending that the land in question was granted not under the general scheme but under Grow more Food Scheme which was a temporary scheme to which the prohibition of non-alienation under the PTCL Act and the Land Grant rules was not applicable. Considering the rival claims, the Assistant commissioner came to the conclusion that as per the Tahsildars order bearing No. SD/72/45-46 dated 1. 10. 1952 the land was granted under the Grow More Food Scheme and in this regard saguvali chit has been issued on 3. 10. 1952, this grant was made under the Grow more Food. The Assistant Commissioners observation is undisputed, as the petitioner herself has admitted in her application in this regard and as the land has been granted under the Grow More Food scheme and as such covered under the provisions of Rule 43 (5) of the Land Grant Rules and since there was no prohibition for alienation of such land the sale in favour of the fathers of respondents 3 and 4 is valid. Accordingly, the Assistant commissioner dismissed the application. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the Special Deputy commissioner affirming the conclusion arrived at by the Assistant commissioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

( 4 ) THOUGH various contentions have been raised regarding the nature of grant and the correctness of the findings, without going into the same, as the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are clearly in violation of the law laid down by this Court, the matter can be disposed of without entering into the merits. The division Bench of this Court in the case of PEDDA REDDY vs STATE of KARNATAKA1 has laid down that the Assistant Commissioner cannot pass orders under the provisions of the Land Grant Rules and the PTCL Act, unless he records the following findings, viz. , (1) that the land belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, (2) that the grant was for upset price or for less than upset price or free grant and (3) that alienation has taken place within the period of the prohibition prescribed in the Rules. As such, the nature of the grant and what are the conditions applicable to the perio