RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is presented by the appellant against the order dated 26-6-1989 of the learned judge allowing the writ petition presented by respondent No. 1 and setting aside the order of the deputy commissioner, mandya district, mandya (rcspondcnt-2 herein) dismissing his appeal and confirming the order of the assistant commissioner, mandya sub-division, mandya (respondent-3 herein) in which it was held that the sale of the land in question in favour of respondent No. 1 was void in view of the Provisions of the karnalaka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 ('the act' for short ). ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case arc these.- 2 acres of land in survey No. 98 of hullegala village, malavalli taluk, mandya district, had been given for cultivation under grow more food scheme which had been promulgated by the then government of his highness the maharaja of Mysore in the year 1944. According to the grow more food scheme if the person to whom the land was given on temporary lease under the said scheme cultivated the land, after the of five years the land was required to be grated to the same person. In the present case the land had been granted under the grow more food scheme not only to the husband of the appellant, but also to 29 others in survey No. 98 of hullegala village. No steps were taken, immediately after the expiry of five years, lor the grant of land. However, by order dated 24-3-1961 made by the deputy commissioner on the basis of the report dated 6-1-1961 submitted by the tahsildar, malavalli taluk, the lease of the lands made in favour of 25 individuals were confirmed. A copy of the same is produced as anncxurc-A. The relevant portion of the order reads thus: official memorandum sub:- confirmation of lease grants made out of si. No. 98 of hullegala village, malavalli taluk. Ref:- this office order No. T. dr. 603/42, dated 6-2-1943 granting lands to the following persons under G. M. F. scheme fixing the value of the land at Rs. 151- per acre. 2. Report No. G. r. t. 97/53-54, dated 6-1-1961 from the tahsildar, malavalli taluk, accompanying confirmation of the lease grant in respect of blocks 1 to 31 for cultivation. 603/42, dated 6-2-1943 granting lands to the following persons under G. M. F. scheme fixing the value of the land at Rs. 151- per acre. 2. Report No. G. r. t. 97/53-54, dated 6-1-1961 from the tahsildar, malavalli taluk, accompanying confirmation of the lease grant in respect of blocks 1 to 31 for cultivation. Blocks 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 for dry cultivation and for the cancellation of the blocks 13, 14, 18 and 23 etc. , And also submitting a consolidated statement of pahani extract. As recommended by the tahsildar the lease grant made in favour of the following leases arc confirmed in their names fixing the value of the land at Rs. 25/- per acre. Sriyuths block No. Extent 1. Earcgowda 1 2-00 xxx x xxx 4. Sidda bin padasale chikka 4 2-00 5. Sidda bin kunnana dasa 5 2-00 xxx x xxx 25. Betlaiah 31 4-00 total 54-30 separate orders will be issued in respect of the remaining blocks. There is no dispute that the husband of the appellant paid Rs. 25/- per acre. Out of the 2 acres of land so granted it appears 1 acre was sold by a registered sale deed dated 8-4-1966 in favour of the first respondent chikkcgowda, who in turn sold in favour of one siddaiah on 30-5-1969. Again chikkcgowda (rcspondent-1) purchased the same land by a registered sale deed dated 13-5-1974. In the year 1978, the legislature enacted the act. According to Section 4 of the Act, every sale of land which had been granted in favour of a member belonging to the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, during the period during which there was prohibition for selling the land, was declared void and Section 5 required the competent authority under the act to make an actual declaration in a given case to that effect and restore the land to the original grantee or his legal representatives. ( 3 ) AFTER the act came into force, the assistant commissioner, mandya sub-division, mandya, initiated action under the act and passed an order after notice to respondent No. 1 that the sale of 1 acre of land out of survey No. 98 in his favour was void and directed restoration of possession of the said land in favour of the appellant. The said order was taken in appeal by respondent No. 1 before the deputy commissioner, mandya district, mandya, under Section 5-a of the act. The appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order respondent No. 1 presented a writ petition. In the writ petition, the main contention of respondent No. 1 was that the condition prescribed under the Karnataka land grant rules, 1960 had no application to the present ease as this was a grant made under Rule 43 (j) of the rules. The learned judge after considering the relevant Provisions of the rules upheld the contention of respondent No. 1 and allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant has presented this appeal. ( 4 ) THERE were doubts aboul certain facts and therefore, on the last occasion we had asked the assistant commissioner to State all the relevant facts and produce the original records, as no statement of objection had been filed by him in the writ petition. Accordingly the assistant commissioner has filed statement of facts and he has also produced the original records. The undisputed facts which have now come to light are these.- (I.) Two acres of land in survey No. 98 of hullcgala village had been given for temporary cultivation to the husband of the appellant under the grow more food scheme in the year 1944. (ii) after nearly 11 years on 24-3-1961 the lease grant was confirmed in favour of the husband of the appellant and he was required to pay a sum of Rs. 25/- per acre and the said amount had been paid. from the above facts, it is clear that the land came to be granted permanently in favour of the husband of the appellant on 24-3-1961. It appears that no saguvali chit had been issued and it came to be issued on 3-4-1974. In view of this, it is being contended that the land grant rules, 1960 were inapplicable as those rules were replaced before the saguvali chit was granted on 3-4-1974. ( 5 ) IN our opinion the issue of saguvali chitafter the grant was unnecessary in this case for the reason that the possession of the land was given in the year 1944 itself under the grow more food scheme and all that was being done by order dated 24-3-1961 by the deputy commissioner was to confirm the grant. ( 5 ) IN our opinion the issue of saguvali chitafter the grant was unnecessary in this case for the reason that the possession of the land was given in the year 1944 itself under the grow more food scheme and all that was being done by order dated 24-3-1961 by the deputy commissioner was to confirm the grant. Therefore, no importance can be attached to the saguvali chit said to have been issued on 3-4-1974. We hold that the grant was made on 24-3-1961 when the 1960 rules were in force. ( 6 ) THE important question however for con-side-ration in this appeal is whether the condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years prescribed under Rule 43 (g) of the Karnataka land grant rules, 1960 apply to the grant in question for the reason that if the said Rule applies to the present case the sale made within 15 years from the date of grant i. e. , 24-3-1961 becomes invalid and the Provisions of the act get attracted. If on the other hand the said Rule is not applicable then the Provisions of the act would not be attracted at all? ( 7 ) IN order to appreciate this point, we have to make a brief reference to the Provisions of the Mysore land revenue (Amendment) rules, 1960 which regulated the grant of lands. Rule 42 of the said rules prescribed the powers of different revenue officers in respect of grant of lands vi/. , That of the tahsildar, assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner and also indicated the maximum extent of land which could be granted by each of the officers in favour of individuals. Rule 43 of the rules prescribed the procedure for disposal of lands for cultivation. Rule 43 (a) required the preparation of list of lands available for disposal. Rule 43 (b) prescribed the order of preference in the matter of grant of lands. Rule 43 (c) prescribed certain special categories of persons in whose favour the land could be granted. Rule 43 (f) prescribed the order of priority and extent of land to be granted to various categories of persons specified in the said rule. Rule 43 (b) prescribed the order of preference in the matter of grant of lands. Rule 43 (c) prescribed certain special categories of persons in whose favour the land could be granted. Rule 43 (f) prescribed the order of priority and extent of land to be granted to various categories of persons specified in the said rule. The relevant portion of Rule 43 (g) reads as under:- grant of lands under the preceding rules shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) in the case of grant of lands to applicants belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, and to other applicants who are unable to pay the occupancy price on account of poverty, the occupancy price may be waived upto rupees two hundred and the balance recovered in three annual instalments. (2) in the case of grant of land to applicants who arc cx-serviccmen the occupancy price shall be waived upto the extent awarded by government under the military concession rules. (3) in the case of grant of land free of occupancy price the grant shall be subject to the condition that the grantee shall pay contribution or betterment levy in respect of the land and the value of trees standing on the land. (4) where the grant is made free of cost, or is made at a price which is less than the full market value, the grant shall be subject to the condition thai the land shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the dale of the grantee taking possession of the land after the grant. As can be seen from the above Rule the condilions prescribed in Rule 43 (g) is applicable to the grant of land under the preceding rules. Rule 43 (h) which conies thereafter regulates the grant of land for cultivation of plantation crops and imposes various conditions including the condition against alienation with which we are not concerned. Rule 43 (1) provides for case lalion of grant in cases where the grant had been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations. Rule 43 (h) which conies thereafter regulates the grant of land for cultivation of plantation crops and imposes various conditions including the condition against alienation with which we are not concerned. Rule 43 (1) provides for case lalion of grant in cases where the grant had been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations. Rule 43 (j) reads as under:- grant of land to persons to whom lands have been leased temporarily:- notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding rules of this chapter in the case of agricultural land leased by competent authority to any person for purposes of cultivation at any lime before the commence- mcnt of the Mysore land revenue (Amendment) rules, i960 if such land is available for disposal and if the conditions of the lease have been complied with, the land may be granted to the lessee. As staled earlier, the contention of respon- dent No. 1 in ihe writ petition is thai the grant of land in the present case made in favour of the husband of the appellant fell under Rule 43 (1) and consequently ihe condition of non-alienation prescribed under Rule 43 (g) was not at all attracted. It is in these circumstances the question which arises for consideration is whether the grant in question made on 24-3-1961 falls under Rule 43 (j) and if so whether Rule 43 (g) is attraded or not? ( 8 ) AS stated earlier, detailed Provisions have been made regarding grant of government lands in favour of individuals for cultivation. The procedure for grant of lands has also been prescribed. The rules indicate that list of lands available for cultivation should be prepared and thereafter the persons desirous of applying for the grant of land are entitled to apply and when such applications arc received, the concerned competent authority is required to consider those applications and select the application for grant having due regard to the merits of the applications and also bearing in mind the priority for grant prescribed under the rules. These Provisions obviously have no application to the grant of land made under Rule 43 (j) to persons to whom the land had already been leased temporarily for cultivation. In the case of grant of land under Rule 43 (j) there is no question of considering the applications of other persons. These Provisions obviously have no application to the grant of land made under Rule 43 (j) to persons to whom the land had already been leased temporarily for cultivation. In the case of grant of land under Rule 43 (j) there is no question of considering the applications of other persons. The competent authority concerned is required to find out as to whether the land had been granted for temporary cultivation to the person concerned and secondly as to whether he had fulfilled eligibility for grant of land and once those conditions are found to have been fulfilled the authority is competent to grant the land. One special feature about the grant is the person concerned would have already been in possession and enjoyment of the land for several years even before the grant of land and he would have invested money and time and engaged in cultivating the land even prior to the grant of land under Rule 43 (. i ). Therefore, for such a grant falling under Rule 43 (j) no other condition is imposed as is evident from the non-obslanlc clause with which it htgins. As pointed out by the learned judge, with which we respectfully agree, Rule 43 (g) cannot be invoked to the grant made under Rule 43 (j) also for the reason Rule 43 (g) expressly makes it clear that the conditions prescribed in the said Rule is applicable for the grant of lands made under the Rule preceding it. ( 9 ) SRLT. S. ramachandra, learned counselfor respondents 1 and 2 also relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Shivanna v State of Karnataka and others, 1989 (1) KAR. L. J. 294, in which the learned judge had taken the view that in respect of grant made under Rule 43 (j) of the Mysore land revenue (Amendment) rules, 1960. Rule 43 (g) is not applicable. We respectfully agree with the same. ( 10 ) BEFORE concluding, it is necessary to clarify that the extent of land purchased by respondent No. 1 out of 2 acres of land granted in favour of the husband of thcappellunl in block 4 of survey No. 98 of hullegala village, as specified in the order of grant dated 24-3-1961, is only 1 acre and not 2 acres. Some confusion has arisen because two persons having the same name sidda were each granted 2 acres of land by the same order. One was sidda bin padasalc chikka the husband of the appellant and another was sidda bin kunnana dasa. We make it clear that only 1 acre of land granted in favour of the husband of the appellant namely sidda bin padasale chikka had been sold and not 2 acres. It may be, the 1st respondent might have purchased another acre of land from the other sidda bin kunnana dasa bul not from the husband of the appellant. This factual position is also not controverted by Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. In the result, we make the following. Order the appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .