ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. The facts in the Appeal No. 8507 of 1995 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11571 of 1989 are sufficient to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment, since common question of law arises for decision.

3. The appellants predecessor-in-title, Dasana Rangaiah Bin Dasaiah was granted on 16-11-1951 an extent of two acres of land in government vacant land bearing Survey No. 6 of Beekanahalli Village, Chikmangalur Taluk and District. The appellant claimed to have purchased the property from the sons and widow of the assignee on 16-10-1968. On a representation made by one of the sons on 27-2-1987 to the Assistant Commissioner contending that the alienation was in violation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1978, the sale was set aside as violative of the Revenue Code, Rule 43(5). The appellant carried the matter in appeal. The appellate authority by its order dated 17-11-1987 confirmed the same under Rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code. In the writ petition and writ appeal, it was confirmed. Thus the appeal against the order of the Division Bench dated 23-6-1989 made in WA No. 950 of 1989 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.

4. Shri Ravi P. Wadhwani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has strenuously contended, after good preparation that under the grant initially made to Dasana Rangaiah Bin Dasaiah, the prohibition for alienation was only for ten years and, therefore, by necessary implication the grantee thereafter, was free to alienate the land. The alienation was made 17 years after the grant. Therefore, the tribunals and the High Court were not justified in setting aside the alienation. It is also contended that the Act has no retrospective operation and the alienation made prior to the Act has come into force cannot be set aside under the Act. Further submission is that in any event the appellant having remained in uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years he had perfected his title by adverse possession. This contention was specifically raised before the Assistant Commissioner and the appellate authority. Therefore, the matter needs to be examined in the light of the law laid down by this Court in K.T. Huchegowda v. Dy. Commr. {(1994) 3 SCC 536}

5. Shri Veerappa, the learned counsel appearing for the State, contended that the cultivation chit given to the original assignee was only for personal cultivation subject to the condition that he will be eligible to encumber the land only to improve the assigned land. But the prohibition for alienation of assigned land always remained. The title always remained with the Government. Therefore, the limitation would not run against the Government when the land was sold. Since it is in contravention of Rule 43(5) of the Revenue Code, the appellant does not get any title to the land. The question of adverse possession does not arise as against the State since it was not pleaded that the appellant had asserted his title against the State adversely. Therefore, the ratio in the above case has no application and that the matter need not be remitted for consideration.

6. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, the first question that arises for determination is what would be the nature of the right given to the assignee Dasana Rangaiah Bin Dasaiah. Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India envisages that the State shall in particular direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good. Admittedly, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are the weaker sections of the society who have been deprived of their economic status by obnoxious practice of untouchability and the tribes living in the forest area far away from the civilised social life. To augment their economic status and to bring them on a par into the mainstream of