A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.

In this writ appeal, the writ petitioners have contended that the alienation of the disputed land in favour of the vendors of their father by the original grantee, who was a member of Schedule Caste, cannot be voided under the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Inam Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the Act). The transactions were declared as null and void by the jurisdictional authority and the land was ordered to be restored to the legal representative of the original grantee. Appellants challenged the action of jurisdictional authority unsuccessfully in appeal and also in writ petition.

2. Material facts which have led to this appeal could be stated as under:-

Sollapura Bhovi and Ramana Bhovi were granted 2 acres of land each by the Government on 22.09.1939 in Sy.No.39, Block No.6 & 7 of Manchanahalli Village of Anekal Taluk. The grantees transferred the properties to one Venkatappa under registered gift deeds dated 04.02.1946. He in turn sold the property to one Ramaswamy Bhovi under a sale deed dated 22.02.1952. Ramaswamy Bhovi sold the said property under a sale deed dated 21.04.1952 to Gaviappa, who sold 2 acres of land to Mr. Royal Nanjappa, under a sale deed dated 14.10.1952. The appellants are the lineal descendents of Mr. Royal Nanjappa.

4th respondent, the legal representative of Sollapura Bhovi, initiated action before the 3rd respondent – Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land. He submitted before the said authority that the transactions by the grantees in favour of Venkatappa and all the subsequent sale transactions have become null and void as per S.4(1) of the Act. Notice was issued to the appellants, who though entered appearance through an advocate, did not contest the proceeding. The Assistant Commissioner by exercising power under S.5 of the Act, passed an order declaring the transaction effected by the original grantees resulting in the ultimate sale of the property in favour of the father of the appellants as null and void. The said order was put in challenge in an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was unsuccessful. Both the said orders were put in challenge in the writ petition.

3. Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, firstly, contended that, the original grant being on 22.09.1939, there was no rule framed by the Government regulating conditions of grant and in the absence of any rule, imposition of restriction based on the Government order is bad and illegal, as held in the case of Mariyappa vs Dr. N. Thimmarayappa and others (ILR 2004 KAR 3298) and hence, the 3rd respondent was not justified in holding that the alienations effected in the year 1946 and 1952 to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Secondly, a specific contention was urged before the learned Single Judge that, the Government has granted the land on 22.09.1939 and the alienation was on 04.02.1946 and the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1976 and by then, the appellants' father and his vendor had been in continuous possession of the property for more than 30 years, thereby, they have perfected their title to the property by adverse possession, is not correctly appreciated and hence, interference is called for.

4. We have perused the record of the writ appeal.

5. Two questions arise for consideration viz.,

(i) Whether it is open to an alienee to take any exception to the condition of permanent non-alienation imposed on the grantee of the land by the Government?

(ii) Whether appellants have perfected their title to the property by prescription of their right?

Re.Point No.(i):-

6. Indisputably, Sollapura Bovi and Ramana Bovi were members of Scheduled Caste community. They were granted 2 acres of land each in Sy.No.39, Block Nos.6 and 7 of Manchanahalli village in Anekal Taluk by the Government on 22.9.1939. It was a free grant. The Act has came into force on 1.1.1979. S.5 of the Act empowers the Assistant Commissi