RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the special deputy commissioner allowing the appeal presented by the 3rd respondent under Section 5-a of the Karnataka scheduled castes, scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 ('the act' for short) and setting aside the order of the assistant commissioner made under the act in favour of the petitioner and also praying for quashing the order of grant of land in favour of respondent No. 3 pursuant to the order of the special deputy commissioner. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are these:- 5 acres of land in sy. No. 28, block 37 of matakere village in kandalike hobli, h. d. kote taluk, Mysore district, was granted to the petitioner by an order of the deputy commissioner of the district on 28-4-1965. On that very day, the petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of the aforesaid 5 acres of land granted to him. The saguvali chit was, however, issued on the next day, i. e. on 29-4-1965. Since then, the 3rd respondent had been in possession of the land. The act was enacted by the legislature in the year 1978 and it came into force in January 1979. Section 4 of the act declared that any sale of land granted to a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe before the commencement of the act in contravention of the terms of grant of such land shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be deemed to have ever conveyed by such transfer to the purchaser concerned. Section 5 of the act provides for resumption of such land and inter alia provides for restoration of the land to the person to whom it was granted or to his legal representatives. After the act came into force, action was initiated by the assistant commissioner, hunsur sub-division, on coming to know that the 5 acres of land granted to the petitioner, who belongs to scheduled caste, had been sold in contravention of the terms of grant and therefore the sale was invalid. After the act came into force, action was initiated by the assistant commissioner, hunsur sub-division, on coming to know that the 5 acres of land granted to the petitioner, who belongs to scheduled caste, had been sold in contravention of the terms of grant and therefore the sale was invalid. ( 3 ) AFTER issuing notice to the petitioner, anorder was passed on 29-9-1986 by the assistant commissioner holding that the sale in favour of the 3rd respondent by the petitioner of the land in question was invalid. He also directed that the possession of the land be restored to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Order, the 3rd respondent presented an appeal before the special deputy commissioner under Section 5-a of the act. In the appeal, the contention of the appellant was that the Provisions of the act was not attracted at all for the reason that the grant in favour of the petitioner became effective only on 29-4-1965 and that the land in question was sold on 28-4-1965. This argument found favour with the deputy commissioner. He took the view that the petitioner could be regarded as having become the owner of the land only on 29-4-1965 and the grant must be regarded as having become effective only on 29-4-1965 and as the sale was earlier to the said date, the prohibition contained in Section 4 was not attracted. On this reasoning the deputy commissioner set aside the order of the assistant commissioner. He did not stop there. He proceeded further and directed that the land be granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. Questioning the legality of the said order of the deputy commissioner, the petitioner presented this petition. This petition has been referred to a division bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the petition, pursuant to the impugned order of the special deputy commissioner, the land was granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has also amended the petition praying for quashing the said grant also. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the petition, pursuant to the impugned order of the special deputy commissioner, the land was granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has also amended the petition praying for quashing the said grant also. ( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that as the land was granted to him on 28-4-1965 and according to the land grant rules in force, there was a prohibition to sell the land for a period of 15 years, the sale made by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 3 became null and void in view of Section 4 of the act and therefore the assistant commissioner was right in taking such a view and directing the handing over of possession of the land to the petitioner. The further contention of the petitioner is that the view taken by the deputy commissioner that the Provisions of the act were not attracted was erroneous and in any event the deputy commissioner could not, while disposing of the appeal under Section 5-a of the Act, issue a direction for the grant of land in favour of respondent No. 3. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for respondent no. 3, however, maintained that according to the Provisions of the land grant rules, the grant became effective only from the date on which the saguvali chit was issued and as the sale in the present case had been effected on a date prior to the date on which the saguvali chit was issued, the Provisions of the act were not attracted. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent relied on a division bench decision of this court in Laxmamma v State of Karnataka (1983 (1) kar. L. j. 417 ). As can be seen from paragraph 73 of the judgment, the division bench was considering as to the date with effect from which the period of bar for alienation of the land should be computed. The division bench held the period of prohibition for sale of land granted to a member of a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe, would run from the date on which the saguvali chit was issued in his favour and not from the earlier date of grant where there had been some time lag between the date of grant and the date of issue of saguvali chit. We fail to see how the ratio of the above decision is helpful in any way to the petitioner, for, according to the decision the period of bar imposed on the sale of granted land would get extended, in that, it would operate until the expiry of 15 years from the date of issue of saguvali chit. The effect of the ratio of that decision on this case is, though the grant was made on 28-4-1965, as the saguvali chit was issued on 29-4-1965, the bar continued till 29-4-1980. As the sale in the present case is before the bar ceased to operate, the sale has to be declared invalid and was rightly done so by the assistant commissioner. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the third respondent, however, streneously contended that as on the date of sale the petitioner had not actually become the owner of the land, the bar created under the land grant rules did not operate. We are unable to agree. Issuing of saguvali chit is only a further step taken pursuant to the order of grant. In the present case, there is no dispute that the granting authority granted the land in favour of the petitioner on 28-4-1965. The moment land is granted to a member of the scheduled caste under the darkhast rules, whether it is free grant or for a reduced upset price, the prohibition against alienation imposed under the rules operate, as held by the division bench in laxmamma's case itself. Once such bar is prescribed under the statutory rules, that bar cannot be got over by any individual by violating the law even before the issue of saguvali chit. In our opinion, therefore, in respect of a granted land, whether the sale is made after the issue of saguvali chit or before, the effect is one and the same. It would be a sale in contravention of the terms of grant and therefore the prohibition contained in Section 4 of the act gets attracted. In our opinion, the view taken by the deputy commissioner that in the present case that the sale was not in violation of the grant on the ground that the sale was before the issue of saguvali chit, is erroneous. In our opinion, the view taken by the deputy commissioner that in the present case that the sale was not in violation of the grant on the ground that the sale was before the issue of saguvali chit, is erroneous. From this, it follows that the further order of the deputy commissioner that the land should be treated as a government land and should be granted to respondent No. 3 is also without jurisdiction. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that he may be permitted to take away the crops standing on the land in sy. No. 28. The learned counsel was unable to state as to what was the nature of the crops standing on the land. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that it was cotton crop which was standing on the land. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that an order for the refund of the amount paid by respondent No. 3 to the government in respect of the land granted pursuant to the impugned order of the deputy commissioner, be passed. This request has to be granted. ( 9 ) IN the result, we make the following order: (I) the writ petition is allowed; (ii) the impugned order of the deputy commissioner dated 13-6-1986 as also the grant made by the tahsildar on 12-9-1986 (annexure-r. l) pursuant to the aforesaid order of the deputy commissioner in favour of respondent No. 3, are set aside; (iii) the assistant commissioner is directed to take back the possession of the land forthwith and redeliver the same to the petitioner; (iv) if there are standing crops on the land, the assistant commissioner shall give sufficient time to the third respondent to harvest the crop, take possession of the land thereafter and deliver the land to the petitioner. (v) the second respondent shall get a mahazar prepared recording the improvements effected, if any, on the land in question by the third respondent and furnish a copy of the same to the third respondent. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .