RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner - 2nd respondent at Annexure-A and that of the deputy Commissioner - 1st respondent at annexure-B. ( 2 ) SEVYA Naika, father of respondcnts-3 to 5 was granted 200 acres of land in Sy. No. 2 situate in the village Chandrapura, Kadur taluk by the competent authority on 20-12- 1955 under the Mysore Land Grant Rules. One of the conditions of the grant was that the grantee shall not alienate the land for a period of 15 years. However, by a registered sale deed dated 14-6-1965, respondents-3 to 5 alienated the said land in favour of leelavathamma, the petitioner herein. ( 3 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respondents-3 to 5 presented an application before the Assistant Commissioner - 2nd respondent seeking for the benefit of the Act. Their case was that, on the death of their father, the original grantee, the said land came to be sold in favour of the petitioner in violation of the condition of grant and that therefore they were entitled for the benefit under Sections 4 and 5 of the act. The Assistant Commissioner having notified the parties concerned and having held an enquiry passed an order as per Annexure-A, impugned herein, annulling the sale made in favour of the petitioner and directing restoration of the land in favour of respondents-3 to 5. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, before the Deputy commissioner - 1st respondent herein, who by an order made on 6-1-1988 as per Annexure-B dismissed the appeal affirming the conclusion of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner approached this Court in this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the relief. ( 5 ) SRI A. Shivaramayya, learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly urged that, though a specific contention was taken before the deputy Commissioner that the original grantee Sevya Naika was not a member of scheduled Caste and that therefore, his l. Rs. were not entitled for the benefit of the act, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to record a finding thereon. The original records were called for. were not entitled for the benefit of the act, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to record a finding thereon. The original records were called for. In the order of grant of land made in favour of Sevya Naika, the competent authority has specifically mentioned as follows: "as recommended by the R. I. Kasaba an extent of 12-17 in S. No. 2 of Chandrapura village is appropriated and granted to the marginally noted persons at an upset price of Rs. 20/- per acre plus Malki value of rs. 216/- and out of six (6) persons one Sri sevya Naika, who belongs to Banjar community is granted an extent of 2 acres free of cost under D. D. Rules subject to non- alienation for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. Records accompany. A. G 1. Sri Sevya Naika 2-00 2. Sri Thimmaiah 2-00 3. Sri Kariyappa 2-00 4. Sri Mallaiah 2-00 5. Sri Lakshmaiah 2-00 6. Sri Hanumanthaiah 2-17 12-17 therefore, it is clear that Sevya Naika coming from Banjara Community was granted the land in question free of cost. Now the question is as to whether a person representing banjara community belongs to the scheduled Caste as it is not made clear in the grant. However, there is no difficulty in answering this question inasmuch as 'banjara community' is included in the scheduled castes list under the First schedule to the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, published in karnataka Gazette dated 25-11-1976 (Part- iv-1-B ). Therefore, Sevya Naika, the original grantee of Banjara community was a member of scheduled caste. The contention, therefore, fails. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the last submission made by sri Shivaramayya deserves consideration. It is stated that the petitioner has invested a quite good sum of money and he effected large improvement in the land in question. In that view of the matter, the Assistant commissioner - 2nd respondent is directed to draw a mahazar at the time of eviction of the petitioner from the land in question. ( 7 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and rejected. --- *** --- .