M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has challenged the orders, annexures-a and b, made by the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner, respondents-2 and 1 respectively, as illegal. He has sought for quashing the same for the reasons set out in the writ petition. ( 2 ) 3 acres 10 cents in sy. No. 451-a/3 situated in punabagatti village, harapanahalli taluk, bellary district, was granted in favour of one lakshmavva of chinnapura tanda, on 31-10-1932 under the erstwhile Madras board standing orders subject to certain conditions. One such condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the land to any other person than the members belonging to scheduled caste. However, the land came to be sold in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 5-12-1972 by respondent-4-sheelya naik, for a sum of Rs. 500/ -. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land right from the date of sale. ( 3 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 ('the act' for short), suo motu action was taken by the assistant commissioner, respondent-2 herein. Accordingly, he having notified both parties, held an enquiry and by his order impugned herein at Annexure-A declared that the alienation was null and void as it was made against the condition of the grant and consequently directed restoration of the land to the legal representatives of the original grantee. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said Order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the deputy commissioner who dismissed the appeal affirming the view taken by the assistant commissioner. Hence this petition. ( 5 ) TWO contentions have been urged in support of the writ petition. Firstly, while granting the land, a condition not to alienate the land for ever was imposed. However, that condition could be relaxed to 20 years. Secondly, the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession being in long and continuous possession for more than 30 years. ( 6 ) DEALING with the first contention, I have to say that the petitioner has vaguely stated that in view of the decision of this court in a judgment, condition can be relaxed to 20 years. Secondly, the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession being in long and continuous possession for more than 30 years. ( 6 ) DEALING with the first contention, I have to say that the petitioner has vaguely stated that in view of the decision of this court in a judgment, condition can be relaxed to 20 years. He has not cited any authority in support of it. ( 7 ) THOUGH the petitioner has admitted the imposition of condition, I feel it necessary to extract the relevant Rule under which the land was granted. Sub-clause 4 (i) of board standing order 15-41 of part -ii at page 87 of the standing orders of the board of revenue (volume-i-chapter-i) reads:" (4) (I) restrictions to be imposed on alienation - assignments whether of ordinary land or of valuable land in these areas, will be subject to the condition that the lands shall not be alienated to any person (whether a member of the scheduled caste o rnot) in any manner before the expiry of ten years-from the date of the grant nor even thereafter, except to other members of these castes. " ( 8 ) SUB-CLAUSE 4 (iii) deals with the re-entry by the government in case of violation of the condition. It reads:" (III) power to re-enter in case of violation of conditions. If the condition of non-alienation is violated or if the land ceases to be owned by the assignee or his legal heirs or (after the ten years) other members of their class, owing to sale by process of law or otherwise, or if default is made in the payment of the government revenue on the dates prescribed, the grant will be liable to be resumed by the government who will be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the land without payment of any compensation or refund of the purchase money. " ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the land came to be sold in favour of the petitioner, who is not a member of the scheduled caste, on 5-12-1972. Therefore, to that extent, the sale is made in violation of the condition of the grant. The petitioner as per his statement made before the assistant commissioner belongs to vysya community which is not a scheduled caste. Therefore, to that extent, the sale is made in violation of the condition of the grant. The petitioner as per his statement made before the assistant commissioner belongs to vysya community which is not a scheduled caste. Taking this into consideration, the assistant commissioner rightly annulled the alienation which came to be approved by the deputy commissioner. I do not see any reason to interfere with the said conclusion. Therefore, the first contention fails. ( 10 ) REGARDING the second contention relating to perfection of title by adver sepossession, the Supreme Court in sunkara rajya lakshmi v State of Karnataka, ILR 1987 KAR. 2076 has held that to claim adverse possession in a case like this, the alienee has to prove that he has been in long and continuous possession for a period of 30 years prior to the coming into force of the act. Having regard to the date of sale in the year 1972, the petitioner has not completed 30 years of uninterrupted enjoyment of the land. Hence, this contention also must fail. ( 11 ) ONE more legal contention has been urged for the petitioner that possession of the petitioner is sought to be taken away without awarding any compensation and therefore it would affect the right of a citizen under Article 31 of the constitution. First of all, while granting the land to a person belonging to a scheduled caste, the state has retained the power of resumption of such land in case of violation of the condition of the grant. That has been made clear in the order itself, extracted above. Further, this court has dealt with similar question in krishnappa v state, ILR 1982 (2) kar.-1310 and held that question of infringment of right under Article 31 of the Constitution does not arise, for, a citizen has no right to claim compensation in a case like this. Even under the Act, no provision is made for compensation in favour of a purchaser who has to lose, the land by operation of law. Therefore, this contention must fail. No other contention is urged. ( 12 ) IN the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. ( 13 ) SRI M. Siddagangaiah, learned high court government pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance for respondents-1 to 3 within two weeks. --- *** --- .