K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) LAND bearing Sy. No. 31/2 of Hosahalli Village, Channagiri Tq. , Shimoga dt. measuring an extent of 2 acres was government land. On 9-1-1963, the competent Revenue Officer granted the said land to respondent No. 3 and also issued a grant certificate on the same day with a condition that the same should not be aliemted for a period of 15 years. ( 2 ) BUT, on 26-8-1966, respondent no. 3 in contravention of the non-alienation clause sold the said land to one doddahalappa son of Kalingappa of kanivebilchi, Channagiri Tq, for valuable consideration. On the strength of the said sale, Doddahalappa took possession of the land and was cultivating the same. On 16-12-1972, Doddahalappa instituted O S. No. 467 of 1972 in the court of the Munsiff, Bhadravathi, against respondent No. 3 and three others with whom we are not concerned, for a permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with his possession of the land, which was decreed by the learned Munsirt on 21-4-1973. ( 3 ) SOMETIME in 1973, Doddahalappa is stated to have leased the land to the petititioner, on the strength of which the petitioner entered into possession of the same and has been cultivating ever since then. ( 4 ) EVIDENTLY on the basis that he was in occupation of the land as a tennant as on 1-3-1974, the petitioner made an application before the Land Tribunal, channagiri (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under the provisions of the Karnataka,land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by the Karnataka Land reforms Amendment Act of 1974 (hereinafter; referred to as the LR act) for conferment of occupancy rights to the said land. On 30-1-1976, the Tribunal (Annexure-A) allowed the application made by the petitioner and has conferred on him occupancy rights to the land and that order is stated to have not been challenged by Doddahalappa or others and has therefore become final and conclusive, ( 5 ) SOMETIME in 1977,. respondent no. 3 commenced another proceeding against the petitioner and Doddahalappa under the provisions of the Karnataka debt Relief Act. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the DR Act) before the Tahsildar and Taluk Magistrate, Channagiri inter alia contending that the sale effected by him in favour of Doddahalappa was a mortgage and the same should be extinguished under that Act which was contested by both of them. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the DR Act) before the Tahsildar and Taluk Magistrate, Channagiri inter alia contending that the sale effected by him in favour of Doddahalappa was a mortgage and the same should be extinguished under that Act which was contested by both of them. On 31-3-1978 the Tahsildar, accepting the case of doddahalappa and the 'petitioner, (Anncxure-F) rejected the said application made by respondent No. 3. ( 6 ) UNDETERRED by all the earlier proceedings in the civil Court, L. R. Act and DR, Act, respondent-3 moved the assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Subdivision Shimoga (hereinafter referred to as the AC) under the Karnataka Sche- duled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) act, 1978 (Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for declaring the alienation made by him in favour of Doddahalappa as void and for restoration of possession of the land to him under the Act. On that applica- cation, the AC on 15-10-1979 (Annex- ure-H) issued a show cause notice in the prescribed form to the petitioner and doddahalappa, in response to which the petitioner filed objections inter alia contending that he had acquired full ownership rights to the land by an order made by the Tribunal on 30-1-1976, the fame cannot be nullified under the Act and there fore, possession of land cannot be restored to respondent No. 3. On 15-3-1980 the AC has allowed the application made by respondent No. 3 (Annexure-G), voided the alienation made by him and has directed restoration of possession of the land to him. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Act, the show cause notice dated 15-10-1979 and the final order made by the AC. ( 7 ) IN S. V. Krishnappa v. Muni- channappa (I) a Division Bench of this court rejecting the very contentions urged for the petitioner, has upheld the validity of the Act. In this view, the challenge of the petitioner to the vali. dity of the Act is liable to be rejected, ( 8 ) SRI K. Chanuabasappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order made by the Tribunal has not been rendered void by the Act and in any event on harmonious construction of the Act with the L. R. Act, effect must be given to the orders of the Tribunal. ( 9 ) IN his order, the AC has found that respondent No. 3 was a member of a Scheduled Caste and that the land bad been granted to him at an upset price with a stipulation that he should not alienate the same for a period of 15 years, but in violation of the same, he had sold the land to Doddahalappa. Sri channabasappa, in my opinion, rightly does not dispute these findings recorded by the AC. ( 10 ) THIS Act is a special Act enacted to void alienations of lands granted to members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in contravention of the terms of grants made to them by the state. The Act prevails over all other laws, contracts, decrees, orders and awards made by Courts or Tribunals under other laws. ( 11 ) S. 4 of the Act, which is the key section, declares that an alienation made by a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in contravention of the terms of the grant of land or the law providing for such grant as null and void and that no right, title or interest shall pass to an alienee or the person claiming under him The declaration made in S. 4 (1) of the Act is given overriding effect over other laws, contracts and transactions. ( 12 ) S. 4 (3) of the Act provides that sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 4 shall apply to a sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority. Sub-section (3) invalidates sales made in execution of a decree of a civil court, an award or order of any authority also. A sale made in pursuance of a decree of a civil court or award or ordcr of any other authority is not be- yond the pale of the Act and its validity has to be adjudged with reference to the provisions made in the Act. ( 13 ) S. 11 of the Act removes all doubts and gives overriding effect to the provisions made in the Act. S. 11 provides that the provisions of the Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law or decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority. ( 13 ) S. 11 of the Act removes all doubts and gives overriding effect to the provisions made in the Act. S. 11 provides that the provisions of the Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law or decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority. ( 14 ) IN dealing with cases arising under the Act, if an Assistant Commissioner finds that an alienation is in contravention of the terms of the grant made or law providing for such grant made to a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, he is bound to give effect to the same by ignoring any decree or order made by a civil Court, Tribunal or any other authority. ( 15 ) AS the language of the Act, the validity of which has been upheld, is plain and clear, no question of conflict or harmonious construction with other acts arises. ( 16 ) ON the plain language of Ss. 4 and 11 of the Act, the order of the Tribunal (Annexure-A) made in favour of the petitioner being void has to be treated as non est or ineffective and the sale made to Deddahalappa and subsequent transactions thereto have to be declared as void and the land restored to respondent No. 3. In this view, the impugned order made by the AC, though he has not adverted to the legal contention urged by the petitioner and has not dealt with the same, does not call for my interference under Art. 226 of the constitution. ( 17 ) AS the only contention urged for the petitioner against the impugned order fails, the challenge to the same is liable to be rejected. ( 18 ) IN the light of my above discussion, 1 hold that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I therefore, dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule issued in this case. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. After I dictated the order dismissing this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for grant of certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme court under Arts. 132 and 133 of the constitution and for stay of operation of my order. An order made by a single Judge of this Court which is appealable before a Division Bench is hot final. 132 and 133 of the constitution and for stay of operation of my order. An order made by a single Judge of this Court which is appealable before a Division Bench is hot final. Hence, it is not open to a single Judge to grant certificate of fitness to appeal to the supreme Court under Arts. 132 ana 133 of the Constitution. I therefore, reject the prayer of the petitioner for grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal to the supreme Court. At any rate from 1-3-1974, the petitioner, is in possession of the land and the same has not so far been restored to respondent No. 3. In Krishnappa's case, the Division Bench of this court, while granting a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court has granted stay for a period of three months. In these circumstances, it is just and proper to stay the operation of my order for a period of three months to enable the petitioner to move the supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal and seek for stay. 1, therefore, stay the operation of my order for a period of three months from this day. --- *** --- .