BALAKRLSHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE entire case turns' on the point whether the petitioners took possession ofthe land in question on 5-5-1964 and not on 15-6-1972. ( 2 ) ANNEXURES 'f' to 'h' are challenged in this writ petition on the ground that there is no violation of the alienation clause prohibiting alienation with in aperiod of 15 years from the date of grantof possession. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners is that the land grant for the purpose of coffee cultivation. Falls within the ambit of Rule 43-h of the Karnataka land revenue rules (erstwhile Mysore land revenue (Amendment) rules, 1960]. Under sub-rule (5) of Rule 43-h of the rules, it is provided as follows;"the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the date of grantee taking possession. Provided that such land may be alienated with the previous sanction of the government and subject to such conditions as the government may specify it the government is of opinion that in the circumstances of any case, it is just and reasonable topermit such alienation either for purposes of acquiring some other land or for any other purposes. (ii) the area granted shall be brought under cultivation within five years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land. " ( 4 ) THUS, it is seen that on a construction of the plain language of the Rule for the purpose of computation of the period of 15 years, the commencing point is the date on which the grantee took possession of the land. The authority has proceeded on the premise that it is trie date on which the permanent saguvali chit was issued which is relevant for the purpose of computation of the limitation of 15 years prohibiting alienation. Under Annexure-F dated 17-1-1983, respondent-1 has stated that (he permanent saguvali chit was issued on 15-6-1972 to the 2nd petitioner whereas the land has been sold on 15-6-1981 and, therefore, the sale is hit by the alienation clause. Thus, the reason given is that the permanent grant certificate was issued on 15-6- f 972 end itis fiom that day, limitation commenced for the purpose of applying the clause prohibiting alienation for a period of 15 years. Thus, the reason given is that the permanent grant certificate was issued on 15-6- f 972 end itis fiom that day, limitation commenced for the purpose of applying the clause prohibiting alienation for a period of 15 years. Under Annexure-G again it is to be seen that the order for forfeiting the alienated land is based on the assumption that even though the permanent saguvali chit was granted on 15-6-1972, the 2nd petitioner darkastdar sold the I and on 15-5-1981 to the 1st petitioner and has thereby violated the alienation clause. ( 5 ) ORDINARILY the presumption is that the starting point of limitation is-to be reckoned from the date of issue of the saguvali chit. In view of sub-rule (5) of Rule 43-h of the rules, the only conclusion that could be reached is that the land should not be alienated by the darkastdar for a period of 15 years commencing from the date of the darkastdar taking possession of the granted land. ( 6 ) THE point which next arises for consideration is on what date the grantee took possession of the land. There are two saguvali chits in the instant case. One is the provisional saguvali chit and the other is permanent saguvali chit. The provisional saguvali chit was issued on 5-5-1964 whereas the permanent saguvali chit was issued on 15-6-1972. The circumstance in which the permanent saguvali chit came into existence is to be examined. In the provisional saguvali chit dated 5-5-1964, one of the terms and conditions of the grant as could be seen in column 7 or para 7 is that within a period of 5 years the darkastdar was required to obtain a licence from the coffee board and it is only on fulfilment of this condition, the darkastdar would be entitled to grant of a permanent saguvali chit. It is seen that the darkastdar obtained the licence from the coffee board on 31-12-1964 which is also known as the date of registration with the coffee board thus during the year of the grant itself, the darkastdar was able to secure the necessary licence by registering ms name with the coffee board for the purpose of coffee cultivation. However, the permanent saguvali chit came to be issued on 18-6-1972 though it could have been issued much earlier. However, the permanent saguvali chit came to be issued on 18-6-1972 though it could have been issued much earlier. There fore, I am of the opinion that the issue of the permanent saguvati chit has no bearing on the question of taking over of possession by the darkastdar. It is only relevant for the purpose of knowing whether the darkastdar had a licence from the coffee board and, there fore, was eligible for grant of a permanent saguvali chit which, in fact, was granted to him on 15-6-1972. The real question for consideration ia on what date the darkest dar took possession of the land. I am of the opinion that the provisional saguvali chit issued in form-1 schedule-e is self explanatory. According to the recitals found in the provisional saguvali chit under annexure-b, it is manifestly clear that the 2nd petitioner was put in possession of the land on 5-5-1964 and he was required to obtain a licence from the coffee board within a period of 5 years in order to be eligible to obtain a permanent seguvali chit. The question whether under Annexure-B lease was granted or whether a temporary grant of land was made is not of much relevance. What is relevant is the factum of possession. It is certainly not permissible to apply the date of gram of the permanent saguvali chit for the put pose of determining whether land had been alienated within a period of 15 years commenclng from the date of the permaner saguvali chit the premise on which the authority has proceeded is a result of ml direction and hence the orders undetr annexures 'f' and 'q' are misconceived. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the period of 16 years prohibiting alienation commenced, from 5-5 1964 on which date the provisionnal aaguvatl chit was issued to the darka tdar and he was put in possession and no on 15-6*1972 when the permanent saguvali chit was granted. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders under annexures 'f' and 'g' are quashed. Similarly, the circular undei Annexure-H is also quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. ( 9 ) THE learned government pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance, within two weeks from today. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .