M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS W. P. is devoid of merits. It is liable to be dismissed. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT 3 was granted 2 acres of land in sy. No. 84 situated indoddabevahalli, kasaba hobli, mulbagal taluk, kolar district, on payment of Rs. 200/- as upset price, by the competent authority by an order dated 3-6-1965. However, the deputy commissioner waived the upset price as required by sub-rule (4) of Rule 43 (h) of the Karnataka land grant rules, 1960. Subsequently on 7-12-1967 saguvali chit was issued in favour of respondent 3 on condition that the land shall not be alientated for 15 years. However, it is to be noted, prior to the issue of saguvali chit, the land was sold to the petitioner on 9-1-1967. ( 3 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978, respondent 3 filed an application for restoration of the land to him, before the a. c who, having held an enquiry, declared the alienation as null and void, as, according to him, the transfer was made in contravention of the condition of the grant, and directed restoration of the land to respondent 3. A copy of his order is produced at annexure-b. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said Order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the deputy commissioner who, having heard the learned counsel on both sides, dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition. ( 5 ) SRI Papi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that before the issuance of the saguvali chit, the land was sold and that therefore question of imposition of non-alienation clause would not arise. ( 6 ) SRI Siddagangaiah, HCGP, argued in support of the impugned orders. ( 7 ) NOW the question is whether the alienation in a case like this would not attractthe Provisions of the act. Rule 43-g under which the land was granted clearly says:"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 that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land, after the grant. " ( 8 ) THE language employed in the above Rule makes the matter very clear because the grantee of a land of this kind is prohibited from alienating it for a period of 15 years from the date of his taking possession, if the grant is free of cost or the upset price thereof is less than the market value. I have clearly held in Basappa v Special Deputy commissioner, chitradurga district and others, 1991 (2) kar. Lj. 480 : ILR 1991 kar. 1321 that the upset price must be equivalent to market value. Having regard to the market value of the lands as on 1965, mere imposition of Rs. 200/- as upset price cannot be said to be the market value. Further, even that amount has, admittedly, been waived by the deputy commissioner. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, it is a free grant. Further, because respondent 3 was in possession of the land, he sold it to the petitioner before the issuance of the saguvali chit. That possession takes him back to the date of grant on 3-6-1965 and within a period of two years thereafter, respondent 3 sold the land to the petitioner in contravention of the condition of the grant. Hence, the act is applicable to this case. Therefore, I do not see any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is rejected. ( 10 ) COMING to the last submission of Sri Papi Reddy, that the petitioner, after the purchase of the land, has grown eucalyptus plants and their age is 5-6 years and that therefore the petitioner may be permitted to harvest the said crops, I find some force in the submission. Respondent 3 though served remained absent and unrepresented. In the circumstances, I make the following: order ( 11 ) W. P. fails and is dismissed. However, the a. c. is directed to permit the petitioner to cut and remove the eucalyptus trees standing on the land in question before any action is taken to evict him from the land. No costs. --- *** --- .