BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE main grievance of the petitioners is that the land in question is not a granted land within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (b) of the karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The petitioners are now asserting before this Court that the said land was not granted to Lingaiah who is the father of respondent No. 4 and further that he is not a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. If this court were to reach the conclusion that there was a grant in favour of Lingaiah and that he belonged to Scheduled Caste, the petitioners will not be entitled to the relief sought in these writ petitions. ( 2 ) THEREFORE, the only point which arises for consideration is whether or not the father of the 4th respondent belonged to Scheduled caste and whether or not he was granted the land in question so as to attract the provisions of Section 3 (l) (b) of the Act. The second question is whether there is any violation of the period of alienation, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the land referred to is granted land. ( 3 ) IT was very strongly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that inspite of persistent efforts made by the petitioners, neither the Tahsildar nor the Assistant commissioner of Tiptur Sub-division, could furnish a copy of the Saguvali Chit purported to have been issued on 18-1-1960 in respect of Serial No. 89 of Byrapura village. In the absence of such a vital document the order passed both by the Assistant Commissioner and by the Deputy Commissioner holding that the land was granted on 18-1-1960 to the father of the 4th respondent and that he belonged to Scheduled Caste, has no basis. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, it was pointed out by the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that some petitioners had approached this Court in w. P. No. 1842/81 and W. P. 1843/81 and in those writ petitions had sworn to the following statement of facts:" The petitioners 1 and 2 are the owners of the agricultural land in Serial No. 89 of byrapura village measuring 1 acre 11 guntas and 3 Acres 28 guntas, respectively of Tiptur Taluk. The petitioners have purchased the above said land from one doddaiah son of Ningaiah of Byrapura village, Tiptur Taluk who belongs to scheduled Castes. The lands in question has been granted in favour of above said persons and the petitioner purchased the said land after the grant has been made to the above said person. The petitioners, after the purchase have spent thousands of Rupees in order to make the lands fit for cultivation. "the relief sought for in the said writ petitions was for a declaration that the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978, (Act 2 of 1979) are void and ultra vires of the Constitution of india and to direct the 2nd respondent not to enforce the provisions of the said Act, against the petitioners by issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be and pass such other orders as may be deemed necessary and allow the writ petitions with costs. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the learned Government advocate the stand taken in the writ petitions 10521 and 10522/88 are totally inconsistent with the position taken by the very same petitioners in the year 1981. It was contended that it is not open to the petitioners to resile from the earlier stand and to set up a diametrically opposite statement of facts in order to suit the convenience of the petitioners for the purpose of avoiding the consequences of the application of the Act to the facts of the case. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petiioners are agriculturists and in all probability they did not know what they had stated in W. P. 1842/81 and W. P. 1843/81 in the absence of the grant certificate and that this Court should not rely upon the statements made by the very same petitioners in the said writ petitions out of ignorance. ( 7 ) ON the one hand there is an admission of the petitioners before this Court supported by their own affidavits that the very same lands were purchased by the petitioners from the original grantee and that the original grantee belonged to Scheduled caste and on the other hand, there are endorsements issued by the Tahsildar as well as the Assistant Commissioner to the effect that the Saguvali Chit stated to have been issued on 18-1-1960 to the original grantee is not available in the revenue records. The endorsements have been issued in the year 1988 and the statements admitting that the lands belong to a 'granted land' category falling within the description of Section 3 (l) (b) of the Act was made in 1981. The statement made by the petitioners in W. P. 1842/81 and w. P. 1843/81 have become part of the record in those writ petitions which came to be disposed of on 21-9-1982. I find it impossible to permit the petitioners to retreat from the stand which they had taken in the said writ petitions, since such a permission would neither be in conformity with law nor in consonance with the rule of fairness. The petititoners are committed to the stand which they have taken in W. P. 1842/81 and w. P. 1843/81 which were disposed of in the year 1982. Though there is no finding nor was it called for in the said writ petitions as to whether or not the land in question was granted land, the fact remains that on the admission of the petitioners themselves the land in question belongs to the category of 'granted land' as defined under Section 3 (l) (b) of the Act as already observed. ( 8 ) THE endorsements issued by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner would not be of any avail to the petitioners because mere non-availability of the Saguvali Chit cannot amount to a rebuttal of the admission which the petitioners made in the year 1981. In other words, it is a very strange situtation in which the petitioners are trying to disapprove their own admission in the present writ petitions, which, I am afraid, cannot be permitted. The endorsements only show the non-availability of the Saguvali Chit and non-availability of the Saguvali Chit does not necessarily mean non-existence of the grant itself in favour of the original grantee. The endorsements only show the non-availability of the Saguvali Chit and non-availability of the Saguvali Chit does not necessarily mean non-existence of the grant itself in favour of the original grantee. This is a finding which I am reaching mainly on the admission of the petitoners in W. P. 1842/81 and W. P. 1843/81 and in the absence of material to the contrary. I may observe that the Revenue Authorities have committed a breach of duty in not preserving the records and making them available when the rights of the parties are to be determined in respect of granted land. The dereliction of duty is something which has become endemic with these public officials who are suppose to aid public administration. All that I can say is that the officials who are dutybound to preserve the records including the Saguvali chit have failed in their duty and it is a conduct which deserves to be deplored and nothing else can be said in this behalf. ( 9 ) THE learned Government Advocate submitted that the Assistant Commissioner does not deserve to be blamed, because the said records are not available in the office of the Assistant Commissioner. The same reply is given by the Tahsildar also, that the records are no available. It is nothing but "passing the buck" and this Court is not prepared to accept the explanation offered by the learned Government Advocate however ardent the learned Government Advocate may be to defend the indefensible conduct of both the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar. ( 10 ) THE next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, even assuming that the land belongs to the category of 'granted land', enquiry would reveal that there is an infringment of the terms of the grant, in the absence of Saguvali Chit, it is not possible to ascertain any such violation. Notwithstanding the absence of Saguvali chit, it is possible to ascertain whether there is any violation of the condition of grant which held the field on the date of the supposed grant since the petitioners have not disputed that what we are concerned with is granted land as maintained by them in W. P. 1842/81 and W. P. 1843/81. There is no reason to disbelieve the date of the grant as 1960, in the absence of material to the contrary. There is no reason to disbelieve the date of the grant as 1960, in the absence of material to the contrary. The petitioners have not come forward with any definite statement as to what exactly is the date of grant, having admitted that it is a granted land. I am inclined to believe by placing reliance on the contents of the orders of both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the grant took place on 18-1-60 in LGR. 417/58-59 dated 18-1-60. According to the rule prevalent as on 18-1-60, the prohibition on alienation is for a period of 15 years in case of land granted free of cost and 10 years in case of land granted on up set price. On the admission of the petitioners that the lands were purchased from the son of the original grantee on 20th July 1966 and 28th august 1968, I hold that there is violation of the rule of prohibition. Even assuming that the lands were granted on up- set price the prohibition is for a period of 10 years and before the expiry of 10 years the alienations have taken place. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, since the petitioners had been in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the lands for a considerable eriod, liberty is given to the petitioners to remove the crops, if any, raised by the petitioners on the lands in question before the end of Janaury 1990 and the Assistant commissioner is directed to have a mahazar drawn up after due notice to the petitioners in regard to the improvements made on the lands by the petitioners, if any, and furnish a copy of the mahazar expeditiously to the petitioners. Writ Petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .