The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of Section 4(1) and Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, to nullify the alienation of granted land and restore it to the original grantee.

( 1 ) THE petitioner In this Writ Petition has called in question the legality and correctness of the orders (Annexures-A and B) passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy commissioner, respondents 1 and 2 respectively.

( 2 ) A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows;- parasa Bovi, respondent-3 approached the Assistant Commissioner with an application in the year 1980 seeking for the benefit under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short ). His case was that he was in occupation of certain land in Sy. No. 54/2 of Devarahalli village belonging to the Government. That was in the year 1977. Presumably he made an application seeking for grant of the land which he was cultivating. It is not in dispute that by an order dated 14-9-1978 certain land came to be granted to him (the extent of the land granted is not clear from the impugned orders ). It was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned that 1 acre 10 guntas of the granted land came to be sold by a registered sale deed in favor of the petitioner on 14-12-1977. The case of the petitioner is that he has been in possession of the land continuously from 1977.

( 3 ) IT is necessary to mention here that while the application of respondent-3 was pending before the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 6414 of 1981 challenging the constitutional validity of the Act and obtained stay of further proceedings before the Assistant commissioner. Hence, there was delay in completing the enquiry by the Assistant commissioner. However, after the disposal of the Writ Petition, notices were issued calling upon both parties to appear before him to hold an enquiry. By a perusal of the order made by the assistant Commissioner, it is seen that despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear. Therefore, he held an enquiry and recorded a finding that as the granted land came to be sold on 14-12-1977 in contravention of the condition of the grant, it was null and void and accordingly directed restoration of the land in favour of respondent-3.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the matter was taken up before the Deputy Commissioner in appeal by the petitioner. The learned Deputy Commissioner affirming the view taken by the assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there was no transfer of the granted land; therefore, question of applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Act did not arise at all and that the petitioner had to notice of the enquiry and the Impugned order, Annexure-A, came to be passed behind his back. On these grounds, he submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for re-consideration, in accordance with law.

( 6 ) I will deal with the second contention first that there was no opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. As already observed, after the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 6414 of 1981, the assistant Commissioner served notices on both parties. Despite service of notice, the petitioner was absent and therefore the Assistant Commissioner had to proceed to hold the enquiry in the absence of the petitioner. However, he has recorded a specific finding that there was non-alienation clause for a period of 15 years and in contravention of that condition of the grant, the alienation took place. Therefore, he declared the alienation as null and void and directed restoration of the land in favour of respondent-3.

( 7 ) PRESUMING for the sake of arguments that the petitioner had no opportunity to put forth his case before the Assistant Commissioner, he had abundant opportunity when he presented an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The only ground urged before the Deputy commissioner was that there was no alienation at all but only a temporary tra