VikramajitSen, Ag.C.J. (Oral):

1. On the last date of hearing, we have brought to the notice of Sri.A.G. HOLLA, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that it is our understanding that the appeal is covered on all fours by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ChindeGowda, as well as our judgement (Division Bench) in Chandra Naik Vs State of Karnataka and others in WA No.16380/2011 (2012 (1) KCCR 254 (DB)).

2. Sri. A.G.Holla, learned Senior Counsel contends that factual matrix in the aforementioned cases was that the Court was confronted with a lease granted in favour of the concerned party, containing the covenant restraining the power of alienation for a certain period of time (in that case 15 years). The distinction that is sought to be brought before us is that in the present case, and outright grant has been made. Therefore, the State has divested itself of any control over the land in question. It is however, not disputed that one of the terms of the grant was that there shall be no alienation and was prohibited for a period of 15 years.

3. Sri.B. Veerappa, learned AGA contends that on a perusal of the grant, the moratorium is for a period of