N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) WITHOUT adverting to the disputed facts regarding the maintainability or otherwise of the application filed by the 3rd respondent before the assistant commissioner seeking benefits conferred under Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978, petition can be disposed of on a short ground:whether the deputy commissioner before whom an appeal was filed under Section 5 of the act rejecting the petitioner's request for granting an order of stay at annexure-b, which is extracted hereunder was right or otherwise. "in the court of deputy commissioner, kolar district, kolar, dated 17-4-1990 case No. Ra. Sc. St. 81/1989-90 appellant: respondents: venkatasubba Reddy 1. A. K. Chinnappa, s/o Chinnappa, v s/o Kodigappa, appasanahally, appasanahally. Chinthamani Taluk. 2. Asst commissioner, Chickballapur. Sub : appeal against the orders of the assistant commissioner, chickballapur in No. Lnd:sc:st: (chim)/l987-88, dated 3-7-1989 and 16-1-1990. Endorsement heard the Advocate for appellant and perused the records. On 5-3-1990 the Advocate for appellant presented the appeal memorandum before this court status quo was issued on 15-3-1990, again the appellant has requested this court on 2-4-1990 to stay the orders of the lower court. On perusal of the lower court records, the land in question was already restored to the grantee on 13-2-1990. Hence, there is no question of staying the orders of lower court hence, the request of the appellant for stay is rejected. Sd/- deputy commissioner, kolar. "the 3rd respondent filed an application before the first respondent contending that the land measuring 3 acres situate in s. no, 44 of appasanahally village, chilakalanerpu hobli, chinthamani taluk was granted to him by the revenue authorities on 28-10-1977. He belongs to scheduled caste. The said land came to be transferred by him to the petitioner on 1-7-1983 i. e. within the prescribed prohibition period. The assistant commissioner on the application filed by the 3rd respondent passed an order in No. Lsd sjc asd (p) 7/1987-88, dated 3-7-1989 allowing the petitioner's application on the ground that the transaction that took place between the 3rd respondent and petitioner as void and resuming the land to the government and directing to restore it to the grantee. The same was challenged by the petitioner before the deputy commissioner by filing an appeal. Along with the memorandum of appeal, he also filed an la. To stay the order of die assistant commissioner. The same was challenged by the petitioner before the deputy commissioner by filing an appeal. Along with the memorandum of appeal, he also filed an la. To stay the order of die assistant commissioner. According to both sides, on la. No. I filed by the petitioner for stay, the deputy commissioner passed an interim order directing both the parties viz. , The grantee and the purchaser to maintain status quo. Upto this stage, there was no controversy between both sides. Subsequently the petitioner preferred one more application before the deputy commissioner seeking for an order of stay on the ground that inspite of an order of status quo directed to be maintained, the 3rd respondent is trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the disputed land. The petitioner contends that he explained before the deputy commissioner that at the time of obtaining possession of the land in question from the 3rd respondent the land was barren, uneven and he by investing huge sums improved the same. He dug a well, put up a pump-house and installed a pump-set. As the well which was dug by him became a failed well, by investing Rs. 40-50 thousand he got the same drilled by rig-bore. These things were opposed by the 3rd respondent the deputy commissioner on 17-4-1990 passed an order at Annexure-B which has been extracted above to the effect that the stay cannot be granted as already the 3rd respondent has been put in possession of the land in question pursuant to the mahazar that was drawn on 13-2-1990 by the revenue inspector in the presence of three witnesses - m. s. narayanappa, village accountant, a. k. kadira chennarayappa and venkataramanappa. The said mahazar is in kannada at annexure-1 to the statement of objections filed by the 3rd respondent. ( 2 ) CHALLENGING the order of the deputy commissioner at annexure-b, the petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that the deputy commissioner was not right in rejecting his application for grant of stay. The so-called banding over property in question to the 3rd respondent is not in accordance with law namely Rule 6 of the 1979 rules read with Section 39 of the land revenue act. The so-called banding over property in question to the 3rd respondent is not in accordance with law namely Rule 6 of the 1979 rules read with Section 39 of the land revenue act. When it is not in dispute of existence of well, pump-house and pump-set even as mentioned in the mahazar, in all fairness the concerned authorities especially either assistant commissioner or the authorities who were directed to hold mahazar should have heard the petitioner in the matter before handing over possession of the property. It is also contended that no sanctity should be attached to the so-called mahazar dated 13-2-1990 as the same is a bogus one. He desired to demonstrate it on the ground that the said mahazar has been drawn in the presence of three villagers who were all interested in the case of the 3rd respondent the other two were the revenue inspector and the village accountant subordinate to the revenue inspector. ( 3 ) WHEREAS, Sri Ramachandra Reddy appearing for the 3rd respondent and Smt. Meena ramachandran appearing for the state contended that the deputy commissioner was quite right in rejecting the petitioner's second application for stay. No illegality was committed either by the assistant commissioner or by his subordinates in handing over the property to the 3rd respondent. They also contended that after all the relief sought by the 3rd respondent was under a social legislation, the technicalities need not be made much about. According to them, all that has to be seen is whether substantial Justice has been done to the parties or not. According to them, handing over of possession of the disputed property is in the aid of taking benefits conferred under the said act to the doors of the weaker sections of the society who have no voice and no capacity to take the competent legal" aid by approaching the court. No doubt, the intention of the legislature in enacting the 1978 act is to confer benefits for the weaker sections of the society. No doubt that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned government pleader are laudable. No doubt, the intention of the legislature in enacting the 1978 act is to confer benefits for the weaker sections of the society. No doubt that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned government pleader are laudable. But, one thing is certain that in the anxiety of giving effect to the act it shall not forget that the mandatory requirements of either 1978 act or the rules framed thereunder or the Provisions of any other act to which there is a reference under the said act be flouted. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner would not have complained or this court would also not have allowed the petitioner to give a big colour to such contention, if the procedure to hand over possession silent. In this case we have to see whether before taking possession of the property and handing over the same to the 3rd respondent whether the authorities who are expected to discharge their duties as mentioned in the statute had really adhered to or not. Rule 3 (6) of 1979 rules reads as follows:"after enquiry, the assistant commissioner shall consider all the objections raised and pass an order giving reasons for his conclusions. Thereafter he may take possession of such land after evicting the persons in possession thereof in the manner specified in Section 39 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964, and take further action as provided in Section 5. "in order to give effect to Rule 6 of 1979 rules, it is said that in case of protest by the person to vacate the property, the authorities can take aid of Section 39 (b) of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964. The said Section reads as follows:"39. Manner of evicting any person wrongfully in possession of land. "in order to give effect to Rule 6 of 1979 rules, it is said that in case of protest by the person to vacate the property, the authorities can take aid of Section 39 (b) of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964. The said Section reads as follows:"39. Manner of evicting any person wrongfully in possession of land. whenever it is provided by this act or any other law for the time being in force that the deputy commissioner may or shall evict any person wrongfully hi possession of land or where any order to deliver possession of land has been passed against any person under this Act, such eviction shall be made or such order shall be executed, as the case may be, hi the following manner, namely: (i) by serving a notice on the person or persons in possession requiring them within such time as may appear reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land; and (ii) if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate officer to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same; and (iii) if the officer removing any such person is resisted or obstructed by any person, the deputy commissioner or the revenue officer, as the case may be, shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case and, if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance and obstruction still continues, may, without prejudice to any proceedings to which such person may be liable under any law for the time being in force for the punishment of such resistance or obstruction, take or cause to be taken, such steps and use or cause to be used, such force as may, in the opinion of such officer, be reasonably necessary for securing compliance with the order. "in the instant case, neither the assistant commissioner nor his subordinates namely, the revenue inspector and the village accountant had followed the mandatory requirements as explained above. When it is mentioned in the mahazar that possession has been handed over to the 3rd respondent, in the absence of compliance of Section 39 of the K. L. R. Act, 1964 it has to be held that such a mahazar might even drawn in their office. When it is mentioned in the mahazar that possession has been handed over to the 3rd respondent, in the absence of compliance of Section 39 of the K. L. R. Act, 1964 it has to be held that such a mahazar might even drawn in their office. This demonstrates the high-handedness on the part of the authorities concerned in preventing the purchaser to continue in possession of the land in question without evicting him in accordance with law. From the above discussion it is quite clear that at no time; the notice was served on the petitioner calling upon him to vacate the land in question. There is nothing to show that the petitioner refused to vacate. There is also no evidence to show that any summary enquiry was held. As such, it is too much to assume that the petitioner handed over possession voluntarily to the 3rd respondent in the presence of the authority, or the authorities handed over the land to the-3rd respondent by dispossessing the petitioner in accordance with law. When handing over and taking possession of the land in question has not been proved, no importance can be attached to the so-called mahazar dated 13-2-1990 produced by the 3rd respondent at annexure-1 to the statement of objection. In view of this, the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of the land in question till he is evicted in accordance with law. If the 3rd respondent or respondents 1 and 2 assert that the petitioner was dispossessed long back, and the land in question put in possession of the 3rd respondent, they shall redeliver the said land to the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN view of the above discussion, the petition has to be allowed. Hence, the above writ petition is allowed quashing the order passed by the deputy commissioner at annexure-8 with a direction to the assistant commissioner and his subordinates including the 3rd respondent to restore the land survey No. 44 measuring 3 acres of appasanahally village, cbilakalanerpu hobli, chinthamani taluk to the petitioner within eight days from the date of receipt of this order without any protest. If the 3rd respondent has really raised any crop pursuant to the mahazar drawn at anncxure-r-1 to the statement of objections, it is made clear that the assistant commissioner shall draw a mahazar of the standing crop by deputing the tahsildar of cbinthamani taluk and to fix its value in which event the value of the standing crop if any, re-estimated shall be paid by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent, as compensation and on his refusal the possession of land be redelivered to the petitioner after harvesting the present standing crop. Hence, the petition is allowed and the order under challenge is quashed. The deputy commissioner shall hear the main appeal and i. a. 2 for stay on merits afresh and dispose of the same within three months. There is no order as to costs. Learned high court government pleader - Smt. Meena ramachandran is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. --- *** --- .