K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) LAND bearing S. No. 67 of Hittal village, Shikaripur Taluk, measuring 1 acre 05 guntas was a Government Land. On 22. 7. 1983, the competent Revenue officer granted the said land to respondent-3, a member of scheduled caste under the Land Grant Rules with a condition that he should not alienate the same for a period of ten years. ( 2 ) BUT in execution off a decree in o. S. No. 208 of 1956 (Ex-171 of 1960) obtained by one Kavi Panchappa again st respondent-3, the said land was sold on 9. 3. 1961 to one Neeli Hanumappa in court auction which was also eon firmed on 13. 4. 1961. Neeli Hanumappa, in turn sold the land to the petitioner on 16. 9. 1963 for valuable consideration from which date, he is in possession of the same as its cultivator. ( 3 ) UNDER the Karnataka Schedule castes and Scheduleu Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978 (Kar. Act No. 2 of 1979) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') respondent - 3 made an application before the assistant Commissioner, Sagar Sub-Dn. Sagar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the a. C. ') for voiding the court sale and the sale made to the petitioner also. On that application, the A. C. issued show-cause notices to Neeli Hanumappa and the petitioner, in response to which the latter appeared before the A. C. and opposed the same principally on the ground that he was an, innocent purchaser from an auction purchaser in a court sale and the same, cannot be nullified under the Act. On 30. 10. 1979 (Ex-B) the A. C. without any discussion of the question, lias allowed the application! made by respondent-3 and declared the sale as void and directed restoration of possession of the land to respondent-3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has challenged the Act and the order made by the a. C. on 30. 10. 1979 (Ex-B ). ( 4 ) IN Krishnappa v. Munichannappa (W. P. No. 5516 of 1979 and connected cases, decided on 16. 9. 1982) 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 validity of the Act is liable to be rejected. 9. 1982) 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 validity of the Act is liable to be rejected. ( 5 ) SRI E. Thirthappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Act does not nullify court sales and therefore, the same made to Neel hanumappa and the sale made by him to his client are valid. ( 6 ) THE Court sale to Neeli Hanumappa was made within the prohibited period of non-alienation is not and cannot be disputed also. If the court sale is voidi, the sale made thereafter by the auction puchaser to the petitioner will also be void. ( 7 ) THE Act is a special Act enacted to void the 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. ( 8 ) 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. ( 9 ) S. 4 (3) o? the Act provides that sub-sees. (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-sec. (3) invalidates sales made in execution of a decree of a civil court, an award or order of any authority also. A sale of a granted land in execution of a decree if it violates the, terms of the grant, stands on the same footing as a private sale in contravention of the terms of grant. A court sale is not beyond the reach of the Act. A sale of a granted land in execution of a decree if it violates the, terms of the grant, stands on the same footing as a private sale in contravention of the terms of grant. A court sale is not beyond the reach of the Act. ( 10 ) 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. ( 11 ) IN dealing with cases arising under the Act, if an Assistant Commissioner finds that an alienation is in conrtravention of the terms of the granl 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, sale or order made by a civil court tribunal or any other authority. ( 12 ) ON a combind reading of S. 4 (3) and S. 11 of the Act, the sale made by the court of the Munsiff, Sagar to neeli Hanumappa within the prohibited period was in contraventino of the grant made to respondent-3 and is therefore void. As that sale was a void sale, all transactions subsequent thereto, will suffer from the same infirmity and the petitioner has not acquired an indefeasible right though their nullification undoubtedly causes great hardship to him. In this view, the order of the A. C. though he does not adequately deal with the question does not call for my interference. ( 13 ) IN W. P. No. 4017 of 1980 decided on 29. 11. 1982, I have expressed a similar view. ( 14 ) ASSUMING that the petitioner has effected improvements, it is undoubtedly open to him to work out his remedy for recovery of the value of the improvements effected by him in an ordinary civil court or before the authority as and when a provision is made for the same in the Act. As pointed out by the Division Bench in krishnappa's case, it is also open to the petitioner to remove the standing crop, if any, raised by him in accordance with law. But before either of them is completed also, this court cannot interfere with the impugned order. As pointed out by the Division Bench in krishnappa's case, it is also open to the petitioner to remove the standing crop, if any, raised by him in accordance with law. But before either of them is completed also, this court cannot interfere with the impugned order. ( 15 ) IN the light of my above discussion, i 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. --- *** --- .