M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions arise out of common orders made by the assistant commissioner/second respondent as per Annexure-C and the deputy commissioner/appellate authority/first respondent as per annexurc-d respectively. The facts and circumstances including the questions of law arising out of the common orders are one and the same. I propose to dispose of these two writ petitions by the following common order. By perusal of the pleadings as well as the reference made to the facts in the impugned orders of the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner, it is seen that one bhoodi gollaiah was enjoying 2-00 acres of land in sy. No. 36/16, situated in bhimanahalli village, malavalli taluk, mandya district as lease hold rights had been conferred upon him by the competent authority under the grow more food scheme earlier. During the course of the enjoyment of the lease hold rights by the lessee of the said land, on an application made by the lessee, the deputy commissioner confirmed the lease hold rights and the occupancy rights in favour of the lessee by an order made by the deputy commissioner on 8-1-1964. These facts are not in dispute. In other words from the date of confirmation made by the deputy commissioner in accordance with the land grant rules, the occupant who was enjoying the land under the lease hold rights derived full title and right of cultivation in his favour. ( 2 ) IT is again not in dispute that the said two acres of granted land came to bepurchased by k. Siddaraju, son of k. Koppaiah-third respondent herein by a registered sale deed dated 19-2-1964 from the original grantee. Subsequently the 3rd respondent sold one acre of land in favour of k. Chowdaiah, petitioner in writ petition No. 5724/1988 under a registered sale deed somewhere in the, year 1966 and again the remaining one acre came to be sold in favour of chikkaputtaiah, petitioner in writ petition No. 5725/1988 by a registered sale deed dated 13-6-1969. Thus, the petitioners have been in enjoyment of the land purchased by them respectively from the date of sale. ( 3 ) AFTER coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes act (hereinafter called 'the act of 1978'), sid daraju/third respondent has approached the assistant commissioner, mandya seeking benefit of sections 4 and 5 of the said act. ( 3 ) AFTER coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes act (hereinafter called 'the act of 1978'), sid daraju/third respondent has approached the assistant commissioner, mandya seeking benefit of sections 4 and 5 of the said act. His case was that the granted land came to be sold in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 in contravention of the condition. Therefore, be is entitled for the restoration of the granted land. ( 4 ) THE assistant commissioner having held enquiry passed an order as per Annexure-C by which he held that, as per the condition of non-alienation clause imposed in the grant, that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land for a period of 15 years. In contravention of the said condition, the granted land came to be sold in favour of these petitioners. Therefore he held that Section 4 is attracted for the purpose of declaring that the alienation is bad in law. He further held that the applicant siddaraju was entitled for restoration of the granted land. Aggrieved by this order of assistant commissioner the matter was taken up before the deputy commissioner, mandya in appeals by a common order made by the deputy commissioner Annexure-D. The deputy commissioner held that the view taken by the assistant commissioner being justified, he dismissed the appeals, though he has observed in the course of his order as follows:-"the contention of the appellant is that since the disputed lands were given to the respondent's father on lease under the grow more food scheme and later confirmed in his name, there was no condition of non-alienation. "in other words though the approach of the deputy commissioner was somewhat correct with a view to appreciate the relevant provision of law governing the grant, he ultimately failed to appreciate the approach of the assistant commissioner in holding that the applicant siddaraju was entitled for the relief under the act. Hence, these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) SRI ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioners who took me through the impugned orders as well as the contention taken in the writ petition, urged that (1) Rule 43-j of the Karnataka land grant rules relevant for the purpose of appreciating the facts of the case, he has made an application for the purpose of confirmation of the land by the deputy commissioner taking into account the lease hold rights that were enjoyed by the grantee earlier. The argument advanced by Sri Ramachandra is that although Rule 43-g is relevant for the purpose of understanding the conditions incorporated any ordinary land grant, in a case where any lessee who was enjoying the lease hold rights on the government land earlier was under a scheme such as 'grow more food scheme', in the instant case admittedly the land was leased in favour of the lessee under the government scheme, Rule 43-g is not applicable. On the other hand, Rule 43-j governs the conditions of confirmation of the land in favour of the lessee. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to him this very question came to be considered by this court in Shivanna v State of Karnataka and others, 1989 (1) KAR. L. J. 294. He, therefore, placed reliance upon the decision of this court in shivanna's case. ( 7 ) IN Chikkegowda and another v State of Karnataka and others, writ petition Nos. 6737 and 6738 of 1988 disposed of on 26-6-1989, brother Balakrishna, J. Has also taken the view that Rule 43-j is made applicable for the purpose of understanding the confirmation of the land in a case like this. The learned judge held that the Provisions of Rule 43-j which is made applicable in a case like this are attracted to the facts of this case. He further held that the grant made in favour of the original grantee are free from any restriction or alienation clause. The division bench of this court considered the view expressed by brother balakrishna, J. In chikkegowda's case reported in 1991 (1) KAR. L. J. 210. It is seen that during the course of the. He further held that the grant made in favour of the original grantee are free from any restriction or alienation clause. The division bench of this court considered the view expressed by brother balakrishna, J. In chikkegowda's case reported in 1991 (1) KAR. L. J. 210. It is seen that during the course of the. Judgment in writ appeal, the division bench also referred to the judgment of this court in shivanna's case and the division bench has endorsed the view taken by me in that case/besides, the division bench has approved the view expressed in chikkegowda's case. Therefore, strong reliance is placed by Sri Ramachandra on the decision rendered by division bench, reported in 1991 (1) KAR. L. J. 210 which is in favour of the petitioners. ( 8 ) IT is enough to point out that in para 8 of the order of the division bench reported in 1991 (1) KAR. L. J. at page 213, in their judgment observed aa follows:-"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 are 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. 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. 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-j. Therefore, for such a grant falling under Rule 43-j no other condition is imposed as is evident from the non-obstante clause with which it begins. 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. "in paragraph 9, their lordships have also referred to the judgment rendered in shivanna's case, reported in 1989 (1) KAR. L. J. 294, and the view taken in the judgment by me was also up-held. Under these circumstances, I have no option but to allow the writ petitions. The impugned orders annexures c and d are quashed. It is made clear that pursuant to the view of the division bench referred to above, in so far as the land came to be granted under Section 43-j, the question of imposing condition would not arise. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .