M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has called in question the correctness and legality of the orders of the assistant commissioner-3rd respondent at Annexure-A as well as that of the deputy commissioner-2nd respondent at Annexure-B respectively. He has also sought for quashing the same for the reasons set out m the petition. A few facts that are necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows: 9 acres 28 guntas in sy. No. 90 of chadalapura village, chikballapur taluk, kolar district, came to be granted in favour of one kempa, father of chowdappa, 4th respondent herein, by an order made by the competent authority on 29-12-1930 applying the Karnataka land grant rules then prevailing, subject to certain conditions. One such condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land at any time. It is not in dispute that the granted land came to be sold by chowdappa-4th respondent after the death of his father-kempa, by a registered sale deed dated 9-12-1940 in favour of one munivenkatappa, s/o thoti thimma, who, in turn, sold 3 acres 9 guntas out of the granted land in favour of doddanagappa, s/o hanumanthappa, by a registered sale deed dated 4-8-1952. On the death of the said doddanagappa, the khata of the land came to be transferred in favour of his son c. n. byrappa, the original petitioner herein. After the coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the act), chowdappa-4th respondent approached the assistant commissioner, chickballapur sub-division, seeking relief under the said act. His case was that the granted land came to be sold in contravention of the conditions of the grant. Therefore, Section 4 of the act was attracted. The assistant commissioner having notified both the parties and having held an enquiry, passed the impugned order Annexure-A by which he declared that the granted land having been sold in contravention of the conditions of the grant, to that extent the sale was void. He further directed that pursuant to Section 5, the granted land shall be restored in favour of the original grantee or his son claiming under him. Aggrieved by this order of the assistant commissioner, the matter was taken up in appeal before the deputy commissioner, kolar district. He further directed that pursuant to Section 5, the granted land shall be restored in favour of the original grantee or his son claiming under him. Aggrieved by this order of the assistant commissioner, the matter was taken up in appeal before the deputy commissioner, kolar district. The deputy commissioner, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, dismissed the appeal, by his order dated 24-12-1986-annexure-b. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner has approached this court in writ petition seeking for reliefs referred to above. ( 2 ) TWO contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition i. e. , (i) as on the date when the land in question came to be granted in favour of kempa, father of the 4th respondent, there was no prohibition imposed in the grant prohibiting alienation of the granted land. Therefore, to that extent, the assistant commissioner and deputy commissioner were in error in applying sections 4 and 5 of the act; (ii) late byrappa had been enjoying that portion of the land that came to be sold in favour of his father doddanagappa by his vendor munivenkatappa from the date of sale viz. , 4-8-1952. The legal contention is that if we take into account the date of first sale of the granted land i. e. , 9-12-1940 made in favour of munivenkatappa, s/o thoti thimma, and the continuous undisturbed enjoyment by late byrappa of the land in question from the date of sale of that land in favour of his father doddanagappa, their possession is more than 30 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunkara Rajyalakshmi v State of kamataka, ILR 1987 (3) Karnataka 2076, if there is long and continuous enjoyment of the land in question for a period of over 30 years, then the person who has been enjoying the land has perfected his title by virtue of the law of adverse possession. Therefore, applying the ruling of the Supreme Court in sunkara rajyalakshmi's case, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the land. These are the two contentions urged in support of the writ petition. ( 3 ) I do not think there is any force in any one of these contentions. Therefore, applying the ruling of the Supreme Court in sunkara rajyalakshmi's case, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the land. These are the two contentions urged in support of the writ petition. ( 3 ) I do not think there is any force in any one of these contentions. ( 4 ) DEALING with the first point that on 29-12-1930 when the land in question came to be granted by the competent authority under the Karnataka land grant rules then prevailing, there was no prohibition imposed in the grant of land preventing or prohibiting the grantee from alienating the granted land, I must say that it is factually incorrect and it cannot be accepted because by a perusal of the land grant rules prevailing as on that date, it is seen that there was a total ban imposed under the relevant Rule, preventing the grantee from alienating the granted land. ( 5 ) RULE 43 of the Karnataka land grant rules framed under the Mysore land revenue code which came to be issued by a notification bearing No. R. 12540-lr-384-19-5, dated 30th april, 1920 reads as follows:"43. Grant of land. (1) (a) lands under the control of the revenue department specified in clause (c) shall be granted to an individual who (i) is poor, (ii) has attained majority, and (iii) is either a bona fide agriculturist or bona fide intends to cultivate the land. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 43 of the rules reads as follows: "43 (8) occupancies granted to applicants belonging to depressed classes under Rule 43 (5) above and those granted by government free of upset price or reduced upset price to poor and landless people of other communities or to religious or charitable institutions, shall not be alienated and the grantees shall execute mutchalikas in the form prescribed by government. This shall not, however, prevent lands granted to depressed classes under Rule 43 (5) being accepted as security for any loan which they may wish to obtain from government or from a co-operative society for the bona fide purposes of improving the land. This shall not, however, prevent lands granted to depressed classes under Rule 43 (5) being accepted as security for any loan which they may wish to obtain from government or from a co-operative society for the bona fide purposes of improving the land. " ( 6 ) THE above sub-rule (8) of Rule 43 of the rules stood undisturbed till 4-8-1953 when by a notification bearing No. R. 7594-604-l. r-266-53-2, it came to be amended for the first time as follows:"sub-RULE (8)-the grant of lands under sub-rules (1) and (2) to persons belonging to depressed classes for an upset price or reduced upset price and to poor persons not owning any land shall be subject to the condition that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of twenty years from the date of the grant and the grantees shall also execute mutchalikas in the form prescribed by government. "therefore, applying Rule 43 as it stood originally, the granting authority granted the land in favour of kempa, father of the 4th respondent - chowdappa. In other words, the land in question came to be granted applying Rule 43 whereby a condition was imposed that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land at any time. Besides, he was called upon to execute a mutchalika that he shall not alienate the granted land to anyone. ( 7 ) THIS was the law that came to be applied by the assistant commissioner when he passed the impugned order at Annexure-A and the conclusion reached by the assistant commissioner came to be upheld by the deputy commissioner in his order at Annexure-B, in appeal. Therefore, the conclusion of both the authorities being just and proper, they do not call my interference. Thus the first contention has to be rejected. ( 8 ) DEALING with the second contention that for purpose of computing 30 years of continuous enjoyment of the land by a person to claim title to the land by adverse possession, the date of first sale has to be taken into account and that, in the present case, if 9-12-1940, date of sale in favour of munivenkatappa by the original grantee is reckoned, the title of the petitioner is perfected by adverse possession, in which event, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. I must say that it has to be rejected. I must say that it has to be rejected. Sri Lakshminarayana wants to argue in this connection relying upon the doctrine of "tacking" occurring in the Transfer Of Property Act, as held in Mami and others v Hadji Mahomed bin haji pullai mahomed, 19751c 31. ( 9 ) IT is true that for the purpose of understanding the principle behind the doctrine of "tacking" arising in the Transfer Of Property Act, possession of land held by munivenkatappa, by virtue of the sale deed dated 9-12-1940 has to be taken into consideration and if it is done, by applying the doctrine of "tacking", a period of 30 years is complete. In such a case, in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in sunkara Rajyalakshmi's case, the contention of the petitioner, therefore, will have to be accepted. But, unfortunately, that cannot be done in the instant case for the simple reason that Section 11 of the sc/st act has overriding effect over all other enactments which we cannot lose sight of Section 11 of the act reads as follows:"11. act to override other laws. The Provisions of this act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract or any decree or order of a court, tribunal or any other authority". ( 10 ) A division bench of this court had the occasion to apply and interpret this Section in a recent decision in Bhagi Hengsu v Rocky Lhagi hengsuo, reported in 1990 (3) KAR. Lj. 575 : ILR 1991 KAR. 2375, and held as follows:"by a perusal of Section 11 of the Act, it is undoubtedly clear that the Provisions of that Section will have overriding effect over all other enactments. Therefore, the view taken by the division bench that Rule 29-a validates the alienations made to persons other than sc/st also, is incorrect and improper. On the other hand, in view of Section 11 of the Act, which will have overriding effect over all other enactments, Rule 29-a must yield to it" (please see paragraph 18 of the judgment) ( 11 ) APPLYING the ruling of this court in bhagi hengsu's case, I have no alternative but to say that the second contention is unacceptable. ( 12 ) IN the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .