BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioners have challenged the orders of both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, holding that the petitioners are liable to be evicted from the land in question. ( 2 ) FOLLOWING are the facts of the case: lands in question consisting of 5 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 93/1 and a similar extent of land in Sy. No. 93/2 situated at Kalamane village, shikaripur Taluk, Shimoga District, were originally granted to one Voddara Bhimanna and hannappa respectively. Though the petitioners have described the transaction as 'grant of land for temporary cultivation', it would be inappropriate to say so, because it is only on lease basis these lands were brought under cultivation by Voddara Bhimanna and Hannappa when the lease was made on 25-2-1946 by Government. ( 3 ) THE lessees executed the registered sale deeds on 21-2-1952 and 22-2-1952 in respect of the lands lessed out to them, in favour of Amrutraj and Rangaraj. It must be emphasised that on 21-2-1952 and 22-2-1952, the status of the vendors was that of lessees and not owners. At this stage it may be mentioned that on 8-7-1953, leased lands came to be converted into granted lands and grant certificates were issued on 26-8-1953. It is interesting to note that the grant certificates were issued to the original lessees, namely, Voddara Bhimanna and Hannappa and not to Amrutraj and Rangaraj. Obviously the authorities were not informed that the lessees had already sold the lands in question to Am- ruthraj and Rangaraj. Thereafter on 24-3-1966, both the vendors Amruthraj and Rangaraj executed registered sale deeds of the lands in question to the petitioners herein. Respondent-3 who is stated to be the legal heir of the original grantees made a claim for resumption of lands under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the 'act' for short ). Respondent-3 who is stated to be the legal heir of the original grantees made a claim for resumption of lands under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the 'act' for short ). After holding an enquiry, the Assistant commissioner passed an order on 26-10-1984 under Annexure-C, holding that the vendors of the petitioners are not the lawful owners of the lands in question since they have no title and that there was no transferable interest at the tune of sale and further rejected the plea of adverse possession and directed the resumption of lands and restoration of the same to the legal heirs of the original grantees. The order of the Assistant commissioner was challenged in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga Dis trict, who confirmed the same and therefore the petitioners have approached this Court. The point for consideration is, whether the petitioners acquired a valid title under the sale deed dated 24-3-1966 as second purchasers. ( 4 ) THE admitted facts are that even before the leased lands were granted to the lessees supported by grant certificates, the lessees executed sale deeds dated 21-2-1952 and 22-2-1952 in favour of the vendors of the petitioners. Obviously, the sales were effected in the capacity of lessees and not in the capacity of owners of the lands and therefore the first purchasers did not acquire valid title to the lands on the basis of the legal principle that the purchaser cannot derive a better title than what his seller himself had. The petitioners being the purchasers of the same land from persons who did not have a valid title, cannot derive better title than what their vendors had. Even if the lands had been sold after the grant certificates were issued to the original lessees, if the lands fall within the description of 'granted land', the grant having been made on 8-7-1953 and grant certificates having been issued on 26-8-1953, there would be prohibition of alienation of the lands for a period of twenty years. Even on that score, the sale transactions would have been hit by restriction on alienation of granted lands. Even on that score, the sale transactions would have been hit by restriction on alienation of granted lands. Because the second sale took place in the year 1966, obviously within 20 years from the date of grant and the date of issue of grant certificates in the year 1953, it is not known how the vendors of the petitioners purchased the lands from the lessees though it is common knowledge that these lands belonging to the Government, cannot be sold by the lessees. ( 5 ) INTERESTING part of the case is that grant certificates were issued on 26-8-1953 based on the order of grant passed on 8-7-1953 to the original lessees even though they had already illegally sold the leased lands on 21-2-1952 and 22-2-1952. It cannot be gain-said that the lessees have defrauded the first purchasers and in turn the vendors of the petitioners have also hood-winked the second purchaser who. are petitioners before this Court. However, the point for consideration is whether the provisions of the Act, if applicable, would justify the order of eviction against the petitioners. ( 6 ) THE fact that the original grantees belonged to the Scheduled Caste was not disputed before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy commissioner; that the lands fall within the category of 'granted lands' as defined under Sec-7 tion 3 (1) (b) of the Act is beyond controversy. I such lands having been alienated, rightly or wrongly, would attract the provisions of the Act and the original grantees or their legal heirs are entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Act. On 26-10-1953, the vendors of the petitioner manoeuvred the change of khata into their names despite the fact that the very same lands were granted on 8-7-1953 to the original grantee and the grant certificates issued on 26-8-1953. Since change of khata was effected on the basis of the sale deeds executed by the original grantees at the time when they were lessees and not grantees, change of khata is not of any material relevance because without transfer of title, mere change of khata cannot alter the right of ownership. Admittedly no sale deeds are executed either by Voddara Bhimanna or Hannappa subsequent to the issue of grant certificates on 26-8-1953. Admittedly no sale deeds are executed either by Voddara Bhimanna or Hannappa subsequent to the issue of grant certificates on 26-8-1953. In the circumstances, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that either Amruthraj or Rangaraj had become lawful owners of the lands in question. Proceeding on this premise, it has to be held that the vendors did not acquire any valid title nor do petitioners derive any right from their vendors. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the deputy Commissioner are upheld. Writ Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .