( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THE land bearing Sy. No. 34/1992 of Kalenahalli, Shikaripura Taluk, Shimoga District, measuring one acre was the Government land. It was granted under darkhast to respondent 1 by the competent revenue authority and the Saguvali Chit i. e. , 'grant certificate' dated 30-4-1962 was issued to him. On 26-6-1967 the said land was sold by respondent 1 to the petitioner's father late Kami Giddappa, under a registered sale deed. Having so purchased it, the latter had been in actual possession and enjoyment thereof. After his death, his son petitioner-Vishwanath is stated to be in enjoyment, possession and cultivation of the said land.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT 1-Muniyappa is a member of Scheduled Caste which fact is not in dispute. Somewhere in 1993 he made an application to respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner seeking restoration of the said land alleging that the same had been purchased by petitioner's father in contravention of the non-alienation condition of the grant which prohibited its transfer for 15 years from 1962-63. The formal enquiry was held by respondent 2 under Section 5 of the karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the 'act' for short ). After enquiry an order at Annexure-B dated 28-2-1994 was passed by him against petitioner directing him to surrender the land to respondent 1 since it was purchased in breach of the said condition which was incorporated in Annexure-A grant certificate in accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 framed by the Government of Mysore (Karnataka) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 233 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888. That order of the assistant Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before respondent 3-Deputy commissioner in SC/st 32:95-96 who dismissed the same by his order dated 23-10-1997, produced as Annexure-C. Hence this writ petition challenging the aforesaid impugned orders of respondents 2 and 3.

( 4 ) AS indicated above the material facts that respondent 1 is a member of the Scheduled Caste and the said land was granted to him vide Annexure-A Grant Certificate dated 30-2-1962 with the condition prohibiting its transfer for a period of 15 years from 1962-63, and that the said land had been sold by respondent 1 to the petitioner's father by a registered sale deed dated 26-6-1967 are the undisputed facts. Apparently the said alienation has taken place within a period of 15 years from the date of Grant Certificate i. e. , 30-4-1962 in contravention of non-alienation condition incorporated therein.

( 5 ) THE contention of Sri S. V. Prakash, learned Counsel for petitioner was that the contents of annexure-A indicate that the land was sold to respondent 1 on payment of its market price and therefore sub-clause (4) of Rule 43-G is not attracted to the said alienation and the non-alienation condition in it is inoperative and unenforceable.

( 6 ) PER contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri Ashwin representing respondent 1, both argued otherwise in support of the impugned orders of the authorities below. Their contention was that the amount of Rs. 26. 10 ps. shown in Annexure-A as the price for the land is not in fact its price but it was the amount collected by the granting authority towards certain miscellaneous charges, the grant made to respondent 1 being free of cost. Elaborating this submission they relied on the non-alienation condition in Annexure-A and maintained that its incorporation therein makes it clear that the grant of the land was free of cost. They submitted that if the land was not really granted free of cost to respondent 1 there was no need for the granting authority to include the said non-alienation condition in Annexure-A. Reliance was sought to be placed by them on the decisions of this Court in (1) Basappa v Special deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga Distr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document