RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition deserves to be allowed on a short ground. Late Sri Mariappa father of Petitioners 1 and 2 was granted 2 acres and 23 guntas in Survey No. 7, situated in Vyasanhally village, Shimoga Taluk, Shimoga district, by the competant authority, under the then darkhast rules, by an order made on 15-1-1948. One of the conditions of the grant was that the grantee shall not alienate the said land to any one. However, by a registered sale deed on 14-9-1965, the grantee sold the said land to respondent-3 Basappa. ( 2 ) AFTER coming into the force of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfers of Certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Petitioners 1 and 2 approached the Assistant Commissioner seeking relief Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The learned Assistant Commissioner having notified both the parties and having held the enquiry passed an order under section 4 of the Act by which he declared that the said transfer was null and void. He further declared that the applicantrantee shall be entitled for the restoration of the land under Section 5 of the act. Aggrieved by the said order of the assistant Commissioner the III respondent Basappa appealed before the Deputy commissioner, Shimoga. The Deputy commissioner, allowing the appeal, reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. He recorded a finding that the sale of the land in question could not be said to be void and according to him the transfer of the granted land was after the expiry of 10 years and therefore the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner was bad in law. in that view, the application of the petitioners came to be rejected. it is this order of the Deputy commissioner that is called in question in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) SMT. Gowri, learned Counsel for the petitioners, took me through the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner and urged that the Deputy Commissioner was in error in reaching the conclusion that the condition relating to the nonalienation incorporated in the grant of land was for 10 years, in as much as according to her, the Rule under which the land came to be granted in 1948 provided that the grantee shall not alienate for ever the granted land. it is not in dispute that the land in question was granted to the father of petitioners on 15 1-1948 That being so, the law governing the grant of land was the one that was then in force. ( 4 ) RULE 43 (8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules deals with the imposition of conditions of land grant which reads as follows :"43 (8)- Occupancies granted to applicants belonging to Depressed classes under Rule 43 (5) above and those granted by Government free of upset price or reduced upset price to poor and landless people of other communities or to religious or charitable institutions, shall not be alienated and the grantees shall execute Mutchalikas in the form prescribed by Government. This shall not, however, prevent lands granted to Depressed classes under rule 43 (5) being accepted as security for any loan which they may wish 10 obtain from Government or from a Cooperative Society for the bonafide purposes of improving the land. " ( 5 ) THEREFORE, in view of the said rule there was a condition incorporated that the granted land was prohibited from alienating except in case of obtaining loans. in the absence of a certified copy of the saguvali chit produced before me to presume for the purpose of argument, that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land for 10 years, as referred to by the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal, it must be said that such an entry could not be made in the saguvali chit that too when the rule governing the grant specifically provides a total ban for the transfer of the granted land, and the authorities cannot rely upon such a mistaken entry made by a clerk in the certificate of grant. In other words, a crypticentry made in the certificate contrary to the condition of law will not have the effect of over ruling the provisions of law existing then. In that view Rule 43 (8) shall always prevail over any such entry made in the certificate of grant. The deputy Commissioner ought to have seen what is the law governing the grant of land, then. He should not have been guided by mistaken entry made in the saguvali chit. The Deputy Commissioner has not applied his mind to the then existing rules governing the grant of land. The deputy Commissioner ought to have seen what is the law governing the grant of land, then. He should not have been guided by mistaken entry made in the saguvali chit. The Deputy Commissioner has not applied his mind to the then existing rules governing the grant of land. When the Assistant Commissioner specifically pointed out in the order that there had been a total ban in law in regard to transfer of granted land, I do not know how the Deputy Commissioner reached this conclusion, contrary to the express provisions without assigning any reason to do so. Therefore the conclusion of the Deputy Commissioner in reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner deserves to be set aside. ( 6 ) THE III respondent having been served by the notice of this Court remains unrepresented. in the result I make the following order : writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner in appeal (Annexure-B) is quashed while that of the Assistant Commissioner annexure-A is restored. Parties shall bear their own costs. Sri Srinivasa Gowda, learned High court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .