M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) EVEN though this writ petition is posted for orders, with the consent of both the counsel the writ petition is disposed of finally. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the correctness andlegality of the orders made by the assistant commissioner at annexure-a, dated 14-9-1982 and that of the deputy commissioner at Annexure-C , dated 16-4-1991. He has sought for quashing the same on more than one ground. Sri C. M. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the impugned orders annexures-a and c and other documents produced and urged the following 4 points: (1) the assistant commissioner-competent authority who held the enquiry under the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (for short the act) failed to record a specific finding as to whether lachanaika-the first respondent-grantee was a member representing either scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. Therefore, that being the question of jurisdiction, the act cannot be applied for granting relief in his favour. (2) the deputy commissioner failed to comply with the direction of this court in W. P. No. 17262/1985 to find whether lachanaika, the grantee, was entitled to the lease-hold rights which he was enjoying by virtue of the grant of lease of the land made on 6-8-1942. (3) the interpretation of non-alienation clause found in the saguvali chit that the period of non alienation was 20 years is not tenable. (4) lastly he submitted that since the entry in the mutation discloses that lachanaika-the first respondent continued to enjoy the land till 1988 even though the lease-hold rights came to be cancelled on 3-10-1948, the authority below ought to have considered this fact while imposing the condition under Rule 43-g, of the Karnataka land grant rules. ( 3 ) BEFORE considering the legal contentions urged by Mr. Desai, learned counselfor the petitioner, it is better for me to refer to the salient facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that 4 acres of land in sy. No. 134 situated in the villagemathigatta, kadur taluk, chickmagalur district came to be granted by way of lease for five years in favour of lachanaika-the first respondent herein by on order made by the competent authority on 6-8-1942, subject to certain conditions. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that 4 acres of land in sy. No. 134 situated in the villagemathigatta, kadur taluk, chickmagalur district came to be granted by way of lease for five years in favour of lachanaika-the first respondent herein by on order made by the competent authority on 6-8-1942, subject to certain conditions. ( 5 ) AGAIN it is not in dispute that by an order made by the competent authority on3-10-1948, the lease hold rights came to be cancelled. This order was not called in question by the aggrieved person. ( 6 ) BY an order on 24-2-1954 subsequently the application of the first respondent-lachanaika came to be considered along with other 11 applicants for grant of land in their favour under the scheme evolved for the grant of lands in favour of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. On the said date the divisional commissioner granted each one of them a small piece of land belonging to the government under the Karnataka land grant rules subject to certain conditions. Accordingly on 17-4-1954 saguvali chit came to be issued as per Annexure-D. In the saguvali chit a non-alienation clause is imposed that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land for a period of 10 years from the date of issuance of saguvali chit. ( 7 ) IT is again undisputed that 28 guntas out of granted land came to be sold infavour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 6-1-1967 for a valuable consideration. ( 8 ) AFTER coming into force of the Act, suo motu again was taken by the assistant commissioner, tarikere sub-division under the Provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the act. He notified both parties and held an enquiry. Both parties were present in the enquiry. The assistant commissioner having verified the evidence both documentary and oral and based upon the documentary evidence found in the records, declared that, as there was a prohibition imposed prohibiting the grantee not to sell or alienate the granted land, 28 guntas of land having been sold in favour of the petitioner on 6-1-1967, before the expiry of the period of 20 years, to that extent, the sale of that land was void. He further directed that the land sold shall be restored in favour of the grantee pursuant to Section 5 of the act. He further directed that the land sold shall be restored in favour of the grantee pursuant to Section 5 of the act. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by this order of the assistant commissioner, the petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the deputy commissioner. The deputy commissioner in his order dated 30-8-1985 dismissed the appeal affirming the conclusion of the assistant commissioner. Aggrieved by that order of the deputy commissioner, the petitioner-appellant approached this court in W. P. No. 17262/1985. This court on 21-7-1989 allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order made by the deputy commissioner and remitted the matter to him with a direction to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made therein after affording an opportunity to both parlies of being heard. ( 10 ) PURSUANT to the said Order, the deputy commissioner reconsidered the matter once again and passed an order as per Annexure-C on 16-4-1991 holding that the appellant bad no case on merits. Therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed. Hence this petition. ( 11 ) I will first deal with the first contention taken by Sri Desai that there is no finding recorded by the assistant commissioner or deputy commissioner that the applicant-lachanaika beneficiary was a member of the scheduled castes. I do not think that there is any force in this submission. By a perusal of the original records produced by Sri M. Siddagangaiah, high court government pleader, it is seen from the certified copy of the saguvali chit at page 25 that the scheme under which the land was granted to lachanaika and 11 others on 24-2-1954 by the divisional commissioner is meant for the purpose of granting land in favour of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. That itself clearly indicates that the applicant seeking land grant is a member of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. That apart, the deputy commissioner during the course of his order at page 5, para 2, while assigning reasons recorded a specific finding that the grantee-lachanaika was a member of scheduled castes. Be that as it may, by a perusal of the other documentary evidence and the very name of the grantee, it is clear that in this part of Karnataka (chickmagalur) normally the persons who are called as naika or nayaka are the persons representing scheduled tribes. Be that as it may, by a perusal of the other documentary evidence and the very name of the grantee, it is clear that in this part of Karnataka (chickmagalur) normally the persons who are called as naika or nayaka are the persons representing scheduled tribes. This apart, according to the recent ordinance passed by the government of India and assented to by the president of India and published in gazette of India (extraordinary), dated 19th of april, 1991, the persons calling themselves as naika or nayaka are recognised as scheduled tribes. Therefore, I have no hesitation to accept the finding recorded by the deputy commissioner in appeal that lachanaika-the grantee is a person representing scheduled tribe. Therefore, the first contention fails. ( 12 ) FOR convenience I will take legal contentions 2 to 4 together. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel is that in spite of the cancellation of the lease-hold rights on 3-10-1948, the lessee continued to enjoy the land under the lease till 24-2-1954, when the very land came to be re-granted in favour of the grantee. Thus, it is contended that the competent authority ought to have seen that the grantee was enjoying the lease-hold rights earlier to the grant of land, and that therefore in such a case Rule 43-g could be invoked for the purpose of imposing condition. To drive home this point Sri Desai placed reliance upon a decision of this court by division bench in the came of Smt. Siddamma v chikkegowda and others, 1991 (1) kar. l. j. 210 (db ). ( 13 ) ANOTHER limb of the argument of Sri Desai is that by virtue of the lease-hold rights which lachanaika was enjoying from 6-8-1942 despite the cancellation of the lease-hold rights, his name continued to be entered in the mutation even during 1958. This goes to show, according to the learned counsel, that the authorities recognised the enjoyment of the land by lachanaika even during 1958. In other words, his submission is that the order of cancellation cancelling the lease-bold rights was not given effect. Therefore, the competent authority which granted the land on 24-2-1954 and issued saguvali chit dated 17-4-1954 should not have been imposed condition invoking Rule 43-g. On the other hand Rule 43-j should have been taken into account and if that is so, no condition should have been imposed. Therefore, the competent authority which granted the land on 24-2-1954 and issued saguvali chit dated 17-4-1954 should not have been imposed condition invoking Rule 43-g. On the other hand Rule 43-j should have been taken into account and if that is so, no condition should have been imposed. This is the view taken by the division bench in siddamma's case. ( 14 ) BEFORE I advert to the ruling of this court in siddamma's case it is better to refer to certain documentary evidence found in the original records. 4 acres of land in sy. No. 134 of the village mathigatta, new sy. No. 246 came to be leased in favour of lachanaika by the competent authority on 6-8-1942. As stated above there is no dispute about that. What is necessary to be observed in this connection is the Provisions regarding leasing the land belonging to the government, under the Karnataka land grant rules. Rule 43-a as on the date of the lease in the instant case provides as follows:" (1) where any land has been leased under the 'grow more food' scheme to persons belonging to the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, who are poor and the lessee is under the scheme entitled to confirmation of the land on payment of the upset price, the said land may, if an application is made by the lessee in accordance with sub-rule (2), be granted to him by the deputy commissioner subject to the Provisions of 1 sub-rule (6) of Rule 43 waiving two hundred rupees out of the upset price, the balance being payable is annual instalment not exceeding three". sub-rule (2) provides as follows:"a lessee referred to in sub-rule (1) may apply to the deputy commissioner requesting that the land leased to him may be granted to him and agreeing to surrender the lease and to pay the amount payable under sub-rule (1) in the manner indicated therein and to hold the land subject to the conditions specified in 1 sub-rule (6) of Rule 43. " ( 15 ) IN view of the benefit conferred upon the lessee by virtue of sub-rule (2) of Rule 43-a, a lessee who had been enjoying the lease hold rights may apply to the competent authority requesting that the land so leased may be granted to him in accordance with the law. " ( 15 ) IN view of the benefit conferred upon the lessee by virtue of sub-rule (2) of Rule 43-a, a lessee who had been enjoying the lease hold rights may apply to the competent authority requesting that the land so leased may be granted to him in accordance with the law. In the instant case it is undisputed that the lease-hold right came to be cancelled by the competent authority on 3-10-1948 after the period of 5 years. The lessee never approached the competent authority to confirm his lease immediately after the expiry of the period of lease. However, the fact remains, the lease-hold rights have come to an end by virtue of the cancellation of the same on 3-10-1948. Therefore, there is no difficulty for the court to understand that by virtue of the cancellation of the lease-hold rights, rights that were being enjoyed by the lease had come to an end. In that view of the matter, the benefit that is accrued to the lessee under sub-rule (2) of Rule 43-a extracted above would not be available to the said person. On the other hand, it is the case of the grantee that by virtue of the order made by the deputy commissioner on 24-2-1954, the land in question came to be granted to respondent 1 and others by divisional commissioner applying the kamataka land grant rules. Then sub-rule (8) of Rule 43-g was in operation and it is relevant for the purpose of this case. It reads:"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 dale of the grant and the grantee shall also execute mulchalikas in the form prescribed by government. "this sub Rule was operating right from 4-8-1953 by virtue of the notification issued by the competent authority. Therefore sub-rule (8) of Rule 43-g extracted above applies for the purpose of grant. As the divisional commissioner thought it fit, he imposed a condition in the saguvali chit under Rule 43-g. But by doing so there is a mistake crept in paragraph 8 of the saguvali chit where instead of showing 20 years, 10 years is shown. Therefore sub-rule (8) of Rule 43-g extracted above applies for the purpose of grant. As the divisional commissioner thought it fit, he imposed a condition in the saguvali chit under Rule 43-g. But by doing so there is a mistake crept in paragraph 8 of the saguvali chit where instead of showing 20 years, 10 years is shown. ( 16 ) THE very question came to be considered by the division bench of this court in the case of laxmamma v State of Karnataka and others, 1983 (1) KAR. L. J. 417, where the division bench construed the provision of law relevant at the date of grant of land and the condition imposed in the saguvali chit and held that:"the restrictions or conditions to be imposed must only be in confirmity with the law regulating grants and imposition of conditions. Where the granting authority had imposed a longer period than the one provided by law, that condition in its entirety would not be void, but the condition to the extent permitted by law would be valid. " ( 17 ) THEREFORE, even though there is a mistake crept in the saguvali chit as regards the period of non-alienation clause, the condition imposed under the Rule covering the grant will prevail. Here, the relevant Rule is sub-rule (8) of Rule 43-g, which imposes condition of 20 years non-alienation and not 10 years as shown in saguvali chit. Therefore, the contention of Sri Desai cannot be sustained. ( 18 ) REFERRING to the other aspect namely the leasee was enjoying the lease-hold rights despite cancellation of the rights on 3-10-1948, and his name has been continued in the mutation upto 1958, the authorities might have permitted the grantee to cultivate the land even after the cancellation of his lease. Rule 43-h which was prevalent as on the date of the grant deals with the rights and liabilities of a lessee. Therefore, Rule 43-h is extracted here under:" (A) all lands granted under rules 43-e and 43-f shall in the first instance, be leased to the grantee for a period of five years. Rule 43-h which was prevalent as on the date of the grant deals with the rights and liabilities of a lessee. Therefore, Rule 43-h is extracted here under:" (A) all lands granted under rules 43-e and 43-f shall in the first instance, be leased to the grantee for a period of five years. The grantee shall, if the conditions of lease have been satisfied, be entitled to be registered as an occupant at the end of the period of lease on payment of an upset price to be fixed in the manner indicated in sub-rule (3) of Rule 43 and intimated at the time of grant of the lease: (provided that in the case of appropriated ryots ownership rights may be granted forthwith on recovery of upset price.) (b) the lessee shall pay to the government for every year of the lease, rent equivalent to the assessment fixed for the land at the last settlement under the Mysore land revenue code together with the cesses which may be levied from time to time under any law for the time being in force. If no assessment has been fixed for the land in question at the time of the last settlement, the assessment shall be fixed by the sub-division officer or the deputy commissioner at the time of grant, having regard to the assessment on similar lands in the locality. The irrigation charges if any leviable under any law for the time being in force shall be payable in addition to the rent. (c) all leases under this Rule are subject to the condition that the lessee cultivates the land personally. Explanation: a personal shall be deemed to cultivate the land personally, (a) if he cultivates the land either by his own labour or by the labour of any member of his family, and (b) if he has residence or intends to have residence within one year from the date of the grant on the land or at a place which is within a distance of five miles from the land he intends to cultivate, provided that if there is no inhabited village, within 4 miles from the land, he may reside in the nearest inhabited village. (d) all land leased under this Rule shall be liable to be resumed after cancelling the lease if the land is not brought under cultivation within two years from the date of the lease. (d) all land leased under this Rule shall be liable to be resumed after cancelling the lease if the land is not brought under cultivation within two years from the date of the lease. (e) the land shall not be alienated or sublet during the period of lease except as provided in sub-rule (6) of Rule 43. (f) the lessee shall agree to become a member of a co-operative farming society when established if the land granted is situated in an area reserved for co-operative farming societies. (g) the lessee shall not keep the land fallow without reasonable cause and he shall adopt such soil conservation measures as may be recommended by officers of the department of agriculture. (h) the rent shall be paid in the same number of instalments and in the same proportion as land revenue for the year in question is payable. (i) if any remission or suspension of land revenue is granted in any area, the rent payable in respect of lands leased under these rules in such area shall also be remitted or suspended. (j) the lease shall be terminated and the land resumed summarily if the rent for any year remains in arrears on the 30th day of June of that year. (k) the lease is liable to be terminated and the lands resumed if any of the conditions mentioned in clauses (c), (e), (f) and (g) are not fulfilled. (l) if in any village all the registered occupants voluntarily transfer their rights in agricultural land as a gift in favour of the entire village community, no person who has obtained leases of land under this Rule shall, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, be entitled to be registered as an occupant. " ( 19 ) IN view of the above Rule, it is necessary to mention here that a person who has been enjoying the lease-hold rights has certain liabilities to be complied with. First, it is not shown by the petitioner that the first respondent-lachanaika who had been enjoying lease-hold rights admittedly till 3-10-1948 was paying rents to the government as fixed on the lease. Secondly, presuming for the purpose of argument that lachanaika continued to cultivate the land after the cancellation of his lease hold rights, it is unlawful cultivation. First, it is not shown by the petitioner that the first respondent-lachanaika who had been enjoying lease-hold rights admittedly till 3-10-1948 was paying rents to the government as fixed on the lease. Secondly, presuming for the purpose of argument that lachanaika continued to cultivate the land after the cancellation of his lease hold rights, it is unlawful cultivation. Further, there is no evidence produced in the courts-below that lachanaika was infact cultivating personally the land in question even after 3-10-1948 till 1958. On the other hand, the scheme under which the land is granted in favour of first respondent is a general scheme for the grant of lands. Therefore, the competent authority has rightly invoked Rule 43-g imposing the condition. Under these circumstances, the authorities below have rightly held that Rule 43-j cannot be invoked for the purpose of exemption from stipulation. ( 20 ) THE facts and the question of law arising in siddamma 's case are entirely different from the facts in this case. The subsequent grant made in favour of respondent-1 along with others is a fresh grant having nothing to do with his cancelled lease. In such an event Rule 43-j cannot be invoked. In that view of the matter the ratio of the decision in siddamma's case will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. No other contention is urged. ( 21 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ( 22 ) BEFORE parting with this case Sri Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the court may direct the assistant commissioner to draw up a mahazar denoting the investment made by the petitioner-purchaser to improve the land and to harvest the crop before any action is taken to evict him. I find some substance in this submission. Hence I direct the assistant commissioner to permit the petitioner to harvest the crops on the land on or before 31-12-1991 and to draw a mabazar indicating the invest made by the petitioner for the improvement of the land. --- *** --- .