RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, bangalore Sub-Division; Bangalore, declaring the purchases of certain agricultural lands by the petitioner as void in view of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act for short ). ( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances of the case are as follows : section 4 of the Act declared sale of agricultural lands granted to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes in contravention of the condition of grant as null and void. Section 5 of the Act empowered the Assistant Commissioner concerned to take action for cancellation of such sales and fcr restoration of the lands to original grantea. Pursuant to the said provision, action was initiated against the retitioner for declaring the purchase of 3 acres of land in survey No. 10/5 of Pattanageri village, kengari Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, by the petitioner as null and void. Though the petitioner pointed out before the Assistant Commissioner that he did not purchase the land in contravention of the condition of grant from a member belonging to Scheduled Csste, but he purchased it from persons who had earlier purchased in the auction sale conducted by the Government. The assistant Commissioner proceeded to declare the purchase of land by the petitioner as invalid. He preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, under section 5 (A) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this petition. ( 3 ) THE Deputy Commissioner has correctly set out the facts of the case at para-2 of his order. it reads :"an extent of 3-00 acres of land in sy. No. 10/5 of Pattanagere village was granted to Sri Venkataramana under D. D. rules in order bearing No. SDO Bangalore D 34/4243, dated: 26- 10-1942 with the condition that he should not alienate the land for 15 years from the date of grant. it reads :"an extent of 3-00 acres of land in sy. No. 10/5 of Pattanagere village was granted to Sri Venkataramana under D. D. rules in order bearing No. SDO Bangalore D 34/4243, dated: 26- 10-1942 with the condition that he should not alienate the land for 15 years from the date of grant. But the grantee committed default in payment of land Revenue to the Government in respect of the suit land, so the Government resumed the said land from the original grantee and held auction sala on 13-7-1953 and one Sri Papanna of Kenchanahali purchased the said land in auction sala and the same was confirmed by the Government on 4-3- 1954. Subsequently thasaid Papanna sold the lands in question to Sri sanjeevaiah and Muthaiah on 16 11- 61, and said Sanjeevaiah and Muthaiah in turn sold the lands to Sri Kempaich and Puttaiah on 30-6-65. The appellant Sri K. T. Sreenivasa purchased the same land on 15-9-1965 from Sri kempaiah and Puttaiah. " ( 4 ) IT may be seen from the above facts, the land had bean granted to one verkataramana, who kalonged to Scheduled Caste, on 26-10-1942. As stated in the above paragraph, the non-alienation condition was for a period of 15 years, but actually, during the relevant period, the non-alienation condition wes permanent. Whatever that may be, the fact remains that the said land was resumed by the Government as the grantee committed default in payment of land revenue due to the Government and thereafter the land was sold in public auction on 13-7-1953. it was purchased by one Pspanna of Kenchanahalli. The sale was confirmed in his favour bv the Government on 4-3-1954. The said Iand was subsequently purchased by others, the last of whom were kempaiah and Puttsiah. The petitioner purchased the land from Kempaiah and puttaiah. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the sale or purchase was not by the grantee in contravention of the condition of grant. ( 5 ) SECTION 4 of the Act, which declares the sala of granted land null and void, reads:"4. The petitioner purchased the land from Kempaiah and puttaiah. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the sale or purchase was not by the grantee in contravention of the condition of grant. ( 5 ) SECTION 4 of the Act, which declares the sala of granted land null and void, reads:"4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed not be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any award of any other authority. " sub-section (1) declares sale of granted lands in contravention of the terms of grant as void. There fore, if a grantee has sold the land before the nonalienation period, such sale has to be regarded as void. ( 6 ) IN view of sub-section (3), even if the land had been sold in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or award or order of any other authority, if such sale was within the prohibited period, such sale would also have to be regarded as void. But sub-section (3) is not attracted to this case, because the government resumed the land granted to the member of Scheduled Caste for nonpayment of land revenue, which power it had under the terms of grant, and thereafter sold it in public auction. In othar words, once the land was resumed, the grant ceased and, therefore, the question of sale of the land by the grantee in contravention of the terms of grant does not arise at all. In othar words, once the land was resumed, the grant ceased and, therefore, the question of sale of the land by the grantee in contravention of the terms of grant does not arise at all. Sub-section (3) gets attracted to a case in which the land was sold within the prohibited periad, though not by thegranteevoluntarily, but in execution of a decree award or order for recovering the amount due thereunder from him at the instance of the concerned decree holder. This aspact has gone unnoticed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy commissioner. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, 1 hold that Saction 4 of the Act is not applicable to this case. Hance, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) IN the result, I make the following order: (i) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the Assistant commissioner and the Special Deputy commissioner (Annexures-'a' and 'b') are set aside. (ii) No costs. Writ Petition is Allowed. --- *** --- .