BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, mysore district passed on 27-3-1989 confirming the order passed by the Assistant commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division dated 25-4-1988 declaring the alienation made in favour of the petitioner as null and void. ( 2 ) BOTH the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have proceeded on the premise that in the grant certificate issued on 25-6-1968, restriction was imposed on alienation for a period of 15 years from the date of grant and that the condition was violated by the original grantee who alienated the land on 23-9-1968 by execution of a registered sale deed. Respondent No. 1 is the son of the original grantee. ( 3 ) THE point for consideration is whether the sale transaction could be annulled in view of the restriction incorporated in the saguvali Chit dated 28-6-1968. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were heard at length and it was strongly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner based on two approaches. One argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the land was leased in the year 1960-61 in favour of faith of respondent No. 1 and it was recognised only in the year 1968. According to the learned Counsel the regularisation of the lease was for as upset price of Rs. 500/- per acre and even if the lease is considered to be a grant, the grant is for an upset price of Rs. 500/- per acre during 1968 and during 1968, there was no rule or law enabling the authorities to impose any conditions of non-alienation. It was submitted that it was only a regularisation of the lease in favour of the father of respondent no. 1 and that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner. ( 5 ) THE second line of argument is a reflection of the pleading taken in para 9 (3) of the writ petition, which reads as follows: "9 (3) Even otherwise, in the year 1968, there was no rule enabling the authorities to impose any condition of non- alienation in respect of the grant of lands. Here is a case where the land was granted for upset price of Rs. Here is a case where the land was granted for upset price of Rs. 500/- per acre and this represented the market value because the upset price was fixed taking into consideration the market value of the land. If that is so, the condition of non-alienation could not have been imposed. The condition imposed is void as there was no rule or law to enable the authorities to impose condition of non-alienation. " ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, the authorities ought to be guided by what is contained in the Saguvali Chit itself and according to the learned Counsel, in column No. 7 of the saguvali Chit, there is restriction on alienation of the granted land for a period of 15 years and the sale has taken place before the expiry of 15 years from the date of grant as rightly held as void. The undisputed facts are that in 1960-61, the grant of land was made in favour of father of respondent No. 1 and the father of the first respondent has leased it for a limited period during the subsistence of the lease. Thereafter, on 25-6-1968, Saguvali Chit was issued in favour of the father of first respondent by virtue of which he became a grantee. The real question is whether the leased land underwent a transformation into a granted land. It would be possible to find an answer to this question provided there are specific and categorical pleadings in that behalf. Even in this writ petition, it cannot be said that there is consistency in pleading since the petitioner has taken two different stands one which is irreconcilable with the other either the land is a leased land or it is a granted land, it cannot be both. At one stage it is pleaded in the writ petition that in 1968, what happened was, only a recognition of the lease that was granted in 1960-61. In another place, it is pleaded that even assuming that it is granted land, on a grant made in 1963, there was no rule which warranted the imposition of such a restriction on alienation of land. In my opinion, unless a specific stand is taken, it would be difficult for the decision making authority to probe into the controversy and adjudicate upon it with a sense of certainty. In my opinion, unless a specific stand is taken, it would be difficult for the decision making authority to probe into the controversy and adjudicate upon it with a sense of certainty. Unless the pleadings are certain, it is not possible to expect a decision with certainty and precision. It is no doubt true that both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have not been able to focus on the real point on issue. I am afraid that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the blame does not lay at the doors of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. Neither of them had an occasion to consider the arguments whether or not the Saguvali Chit issued on 25-6-1968 changed the entire complexion of the case because such an issue was neither raised nor argued before them. It is no doubt true that the question involved is of a technical nature but unless the concerned authorities are confronted with a technical plea, it cannot be reasonably expected that they should have considered a technical situation. ( 7 ) TWO different pleadings lead to two different conclusions if they are accepted. If it is held that it continued to be a lease even after the grant issued on 25-6-1968 and what happened on 25-6-1968 is only a recognition of a lease granted in 1960-61, it would be difficult to accept the plea that there was no restriction on alienation. If the contention that consequent to the issue of grant certificate on 25-6-1988, the land ceased to be a leased land and became a granted land, the result would depend upon the application of the rule which held the field as on 25-6-1968. This Court cannot go into hypothetical questions and give its findings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is for the authorities to make crystal clear the specific stand in a particular issue they would like to rely upon. In the instant case, the legal principle warranted in the circumstances of the case depends upon the factual situation which in turn depends upon the factual assertion of the parties to the dispute. I am not inclined to usurp the discretion that is vested in the deputy Commissioner in going into the question of fact based on the pleadings of the petitioner before this Court and to render a decision on merits, in accordance with law. I am not inclined to usurp the discretion that is vested in the deputy Commissioner in going into the question of fact based on the pleadings of the petitioner before this Court and to render a decision on merits, in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, an effort to short-circuit the process of justice delivery would only result in the laying down of an unhealthy precedent. ( 8 ) IT is open to the petitioner to take a definite stand before the Deputy Commissioner and elicit his findings. Similarly, it is also open to the first respondent to present his case before the Deputy Commissioner in this regard, and both of them are entitled to a fresh opportunity of hearing before the deputy Commissioner. ( 9 ) IN the above circumstances and in view of the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ petition for want of a clear finding on the real issue in controversy and remit the case back to the Deputy Commissioner for disposal of the appeal afresh on merits and in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and a copy of this order shall be furnished forthwith to the Deputy Commissioner. It is made clear that all the questions that are urged before this Court in this Writ petition are left open for decision by the Deputy Commissioner. ( 10 ) THE parties to this case are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 17-10-1989 and no fresh notice from the deputy Commissioner is warranted in this regard. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties are required to intimate the parties on the date of hearing. The parties are required to maintain status quo pending disposal of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. The order of the Assistant commissioner shall not be given effectio if it has not been done so far pending disposal of the appeal. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .