The writ petition is referred to division Bench pursuant to the order passed by the learned single judge dated 14/11/2002 under section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The learned single judge was of the view that once the conditions of grant are satisfied as per the relevant rules which were in force as on the date of grant, the land ceases to be a granted land and therefore, if the said land was purchased subsequent to coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘act’). Section 4(2) of the said act has no application. But however, the learned single judge had some doubt with regard to the decision in the case of Eranna versus Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District reported in ILR 2001 KAR 3136. Under these circumstances, the matter is placed before us. Indeed we notice that the entire writ petition is referred for the decision of this court.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition can be briefly stated as follows:

The land bearing Survey no.13 measuring 4 acres situated at Lingammanahalli village, Honakeri hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, was granted to the husband of the first respondent in the year 1960 at an upset price and subsequently grant certificate has also been issued on 28/5/1963. The first respondent herein sold the land in question in favour of the second respondent pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 7/5/1987. The second respondent thereafter sold the same land in favour of the third respondent on 30/0/1994 and the third respondent sold the same in favour of the petitioner on 1/11/1997 that is after coming into force of the Act. Thereafter the first respondent makes an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura, for restoration of the land. The Assistant Commissioner accepts the application by an order dated 18/12/1998. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner was before the Deputy Commissioner by way of an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 8/12/2000. Questioning the said orders, the petitioner is before this court.

3. In support of the writ petition Mr. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the third purchaser in the year 1997 and the sale having taken place after 15 years from the date of grant, the question of the Act becoming applicable would not arise, in as much as according to him the sale has taken place after the stipulated period as mentioned in the Grant Certificate. The other contention raised by him is that the first sale took place in the year 1987, that is once again after the stipulated period mentioned in the Grant Certificate. When the sale itself has taken place after the stipulated period, the question of the first respondent claiming restoration of the land would not arise. Thus, according to him, the sale is valid. Another contention raised by him is as the first sale having taken place on 7/5/1987, the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession, inasmuch as notwithstanding the fact that the non-alienation clause having commenced in the year 1987 during the pendency of the proceedings, the stipulated period having been completed.

4. Mr. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the legal heir of original grantee submits that the question is no longer res integra inasmuch as the sale itself having taken place after the Act coming into force on 1/1/1979, Section 4 of the Act would come into play and there shall not be any sale and sale or transfer of a granted land is prohibited.

5. Mr. Devadas, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that in an identical matter, this court in W.P.41841/2002 (SCST) decided on 30/9/2008 has ruled that a sale which has taken place after the act having come into force is null and void. So far as the adverse possession is concerned, he subm