RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, has called in question the correctness of the orders, Annexures-C and B, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur and the Assistant Commissioner, chikkamagalur Sub-Division, respectively. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that Sanna siddaiah, respondent-1 herein, is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and he approached the Tahsildar for grant of a land under Darkhast rules. The competent authority, by its order dated 16-11-1951, granted two acres of land in Sy. No. 6 of beekanhalli village in Chikkamagalur taluk. One of the conditions incorporated in the grant of land made in favour of respondent-1 was that he shall not alienate the land. It is also not in dispute that respondent-1 sold the said land in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 27-5-1968. ( 3 ) ON coming into force of the karnatake Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the Act for short) respondent-1 moved the Assistant commissioner, respondent-2 herein, for restoration of the land in question. Respondent-2, by his order, Annexure B, held that the alienation was null and void and he directed eviction of the petitioner and restoration of the land to respondent-1. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy commissioner, respondent-3 herein, who dismissed the appeal affirming the view taken by respondent-2. Hence this writ petition. ( 4 ) I Heard Sri Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, who, having taken me through the impugned orders, submitted that the competent authority had no power to impose a condition no to alienate the granted land either for 10 years or for ever. He further submitted that as the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the land for more than 12 years, he perfected his title by adverse possession. He lastly submitted that the petitioner invested a lot of money for the improvement of the land and if the petitioner were to be evicted from the land, he would be put to irreparable loss. ( 5 ) DEALING with the first contention of Sri Desai, it is relevant for me to refer to Rule 43 (8) of the Land Grant Rules framed under the Mysore Land Revenue code (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). Rule 43 (8) reads as follows :"sub-RULE (8 ). ( 5 ) DEALING with the first contention of Sri Desai, it is relevant for me to refer to Rule 43 (8) of the Land Grant Rules framed under the Mysore Land Revenue code (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). Rule 43 (8) reads as follows :"sub-RULE (8 ). The grant of lands under sub-rules (1) and (5) to persons belonging to Depressed Clauses for an upset price or reduced upset price and to poor persons not owning any land shall be subject to the condition that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of twenty years from the date of the grant and the grantees shall also execute mutchalikas in the form prescribed by Government : provided that such land may be accepted as security for loan obtained from Government or from a Co-operative society for the purpose of improving the land. Alienation made contrary to this rule shall result in summary resumption of the land so granted and such land shall vest in Government free of all encumbrances and neither the grantee nor the alinee shall be eligible for any Compensation. Add ' (ii) Every grant of land under sub-rules (1) and (5) shall also be subject to the condition that the entire land granted should be brought under cultivation within three years of the grant and the grantee shall execute an agreement to this effect. " ( 6 ) THE learned counsel submitted that this Rule was brought into effect by a notification issued by the Government on 4-8-1953, whereas the land came to be granted in favour of respondent-1 on 16-11-1951. In other words, his contention is that when the land was granted, this Rule was not there. " ( 6 ) THE learned counsel submitted that this Rule was brought into effect by a notification issued by the Government on 4-8-1953, whereas the land came to be granted in favour of respondent-1 on 16-11-1951. In other words, his contention is that when the land was granted, this Rule was not there. This argument is again based on Rule 43 (8) (a), which reads as follows :"8 (A) Every grant of land under sub- rule (1) shall be subject to the condition, (i) Where the grant is made free of cost, that the land granted shall not not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the date of grant ; or (ii) Where the grant is made for an upset price or the reduced upset price, the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of ten years from the date of grant : provided that nothing in this sub- rule shall apply to (i) the alienation of any land in favour of the Government or a co-operative society as security for loans obtained for improvement of the land or for buying cattle or agricultural implements for the cultivation of the land ; or (ii) the leasing of any land by a person who is a widow a minor or who is subject to physical or mental disability. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the learned counsel submitted that in view of the conditions now found in Rule 43 (8) (a), imposition of condition preventing alienation of a granted land by the grantee is only for a specific period depending upon the categories of lands and categories of persons to whom lands are granted either for 15 years or 10 years as the case may be. Therefore, he contended that there could not have been a total ban for alienation of a granted land. This contention in my opinion, has no force, inasmuch as, the original Rule 43 (8) providing total ban for alienation was found unaltered till a notification came to be issued in No. R. 5536-46-LR-266-55 8 dated 6th July, 1955 and R-6-16328 L R. 133-54-14 dated 12-18th January, 1956. This contention in my opinion, has no force, inasmuch as, the original Rule 43 (8) providing total ban for alienation was found unaltered till a notification came to be issued in No. R. 5536-46-LR-266-55 8 dated 6th July, 1955 and R-6-16328 L R. 133-54-14 dated 12-18th January, 1956. In other words, the original Rule 43 (8) came to be amended, for the first time, by a notification dated 6th July, 1955 by the Government, providing a non-alienation clause for a specific period of either 15 years or 10 years as the case may be. Therefore, on 16-11-1951 when the land in question came to be granted in favour of respondent-1. this amendment dated 6th July, 1955 was not there. ( 8 ) THIS aspect of the matter came to be considered by this Court in Venkataiah @ puttaiah v. Smt. Ammanamma and others (W. P. No. 416 of 1986 D. D. 19th March, 1987 ). Rama Jois, J. , while dealing with Rule 43 (2) of the Land Grant rules, observed as follows :"it is a well settled principle that a rule making authority has no power to frame a rule with retrospective effect unless such a power is expressly conferred (See : India Sugars and Regineries Ltd. , v. State of Mysore 1960 mys. L. J. 635 ). Therefore, when the rule making authority has no power to frame a rule with retrospective effect, the rule substituted in the place of an old Rule would have its effect from the date on which it is substituted and not from an anterior date. Therefore, as far as the present case is concerned, the rule which was in force at the time of grant alone governs the case. " ( 9 ) IN Laxmamma v. State of Karnataka (1983 (1) Kar L. J. , 417), a division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with a contention that total ban incorporated by the statute while granting a land would offend Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act. The division Bench, while negativing the contention, observed as follows : s. 10 T P. Act, or the rule against perpetuities do not apply to Government grants. Hence a condition prohibiting alienation for ever or a permanent restraint on alienation of granted lands if authorised by law regulating such grants, is not void but a valid condition. The division Bench, while negativing the contention, observed as follows : s. 10 T P. Act, or the rule against perpetuities do not apply to Government grants. Hence a condition prohibiting alienation for ever or a permanent restraint on alienation of granted lands if authorised by law regulating such grants, is not void but a valid condition. " as already stated, when the land came to be granted in favour of respondent-1 on 16-11-1951, the unamended rule prohibiting alienation of granted land for ever was in force and the same rule came to be amended only in the year 1955. Therefore, there is no difficulty to repel the contention of Sri Desai. In that view, the first contention fails. ( 10 ) IN this connection, Sri Desai contended that at a similar point of time, when certain lands came to be granted in favour of other applicants, the competent authority fixed a specified period such as 15 years or TO years as the non-alienation clause, whereas in the case of the petitioner, permanent non-alienation was fixed. Sri K. Srinivasa Gowda, learned High court Government Pleader, submitted that it may be a mistake while issuing saguvali chit in other cases. Be that as it may, every grant of land made by the competent authority is governed by the karnataka Land Grant Rules framed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Code. Therefore, even if there is any mistake in a saguvali chit, the non-alienation clause specified therein will not override the provision of law. ( 11 ) AS regards the second condition of Sri Desai that the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession being in possession and enjoyment of the land for more than 12 years, clarifying the judgment delivered on 17-4-1984 in manchegowda v. State of Karnataka i. L. R. 1984 (2), Kar- 1, the Supreme Court in Sunkara Rajyalakshmi v. State of karnataka (I. L. R. 1987 Kar. 2076), observed as follows :"we may also make it clear that so far as the second exception laid down by us in our judgment dated 17-4-1984 js concerned, viz. 2076), observed as follows :"we may also make it clear that so far as the second exception laid down by us in our judgment dated 17-4-1984 js concerned, viz. , that the Karnataka scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, 1978 will not apply where the transferees have prefected their title in the granted land by prescription of jong and continuous enjoyment before the commencement of the Act, the period of limitation which has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the title has been perfected by prescription is that which runs against the State Government and therefore it would be 30 years and not 12 years". In that view, the second contention of Sri Desai also fails. ( 12 ) DEALING with the last contention, i am of the opinion that it deserves consideration though there is no scheme under the Act for taking cognizance of any improvement so made by the purchaser of the land in question. ( 13 ) IN the result, I make the following :"this writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. But before the petitioner is evicted from the land in question, the Assistant Commissioner, respondent-2, may draw a mahazar indicating the actual improvement effected to the land in question by the petitioner. "no costs. Writ Petition Dismissed. --- *** --- .