The permanent ban on alienation of granted land and the applicability of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, in prohibiting transfer of land.

( 1 ) EVEN though these cases are posted for orders, by consent of both parties, they are heard on merits and disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in these two petitions have sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya made on 3-3-1987 at Annexure-D. The matter arises in this way: Boratah - 2nd respondent herein in these two petitions, a person representing Scheduled Caste. presented an application before the Assistant Commissioner, mandya Sub-Division, Mandya, under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking relief under the said Act. His case was that 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 283 situate in the Village Yathagadahalli, Guttalu Hobli, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District, came to be granted in his favour under the Darkast Rules (The Mysore Land Grant Rules framed under the mysore Land Revenue Code), by the Competent Authority by an order made on 31-9-1944. It may be pointed out, that the proceedings were actually initiated in this behalf in proceedings No. 9/41-42 and a saguvali chit in this behalf came to be issued by an order made on 31-9-1944 in his favour. His further case is that out of the granted land, 20 guntas came to be sold in favour of siddallngiah, petitioner in W. P. 8107/1987 by a registered sale deed dated 11-9-1950 for valuable consideration. Another 20 guntas of the granted land came to be sold in favour of boriah, petitioner in W. P. 8108/1987 by a registered sale deed dated 7-2-1951 for valuable consideration. His contention before the Authority was that during the course of grant of land referred to above, there was a condition imposed by the Competent Authority that the granted land shall not be alienated for ever to anyone. In contravention of this condition, the granted land having been sold as referred to above, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act came to be attracted and therefore, he sought for the relief under the said Act.

( 3 ) THE learned Assistant Commissioner having notified both parties and having held an enquiry in Case No. STL:113:82-83 passed the Impugned order on 30-4-1983. The learned Assistant commissioner having allowed the application of the original grantee-claimant, declared that the sale of granted land was null and void. He further declared that the original grantee was entitled for restoration of the granted land pursuant to Section 5 of the Act.

( 4 ) IT is necessary to mention here that as against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioners approached this Court in W. P. Nos. 11166 and 11167 of 1983 challenging not only the correctness of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, but also the Constitutional validity of the act.

( 5 ) SRI Mudlappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners is unable to furnish information about the date of the disposal of these petitions, but according to him, with the permission of this Court an appeal was presented before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the Act which came to be incorporated by an amendment that came into force on 3-3-1984. That appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, pending disposal of these Writ Petitions.

( 6 ) IT is needless to say that the appellants have called in question the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in appeal.

( 7 ) THE learned Deputy Commissioner having heard both parties, by an order made on 3-3-1987 dismissed the appeal affirming the conclusion of the Assistant Commissioner.

( 8 ) BY a perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it is clear that the learned Deputy commissioner has clearly pointed out as to the maintainability of the appeal observing that he was not informed whether the Writ Petitions before this Court were either pending or came to be disposed of as on the date when the appeal was presented. Be that as it may, the learned