M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the order made on 20-6-1991 is recalled, as some mistakes on facts have been crept in the said order. ( 2 ) TODAY, I have heard once again the learned counsel on both sides. Sri R. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly urged that there is no finding recorded by the assistant commissioner or the deputy commissioner in appeal on the question whether rangappa, original grantee, father of kariyappa-third respondent, was a member of S. C. or s. t. and that therefore, in the absence of such a finding, the impugned order cannot be sustained as that question goes to the root of the matter. He further submitted that the survey number mentioned in the order of assistant commissioner as 104 was not correct. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the authorities in respect of sy. No. 104 would not bind the petitioner because he was the purchaser of 1 acre of land in s. No. 103. ( 3 ) SRI Gopal again submitted that it was a fit case for remanding the matter for fresh enquiry so as to enable the assistant commissioner to record a proper finding on the said question. ( 4 ) HE lastly submitted that in the absence of the date on which the saguvali chit came to be issued, for the purpose of ascertaining the period of non-alienation, the court must prevail upon the rules in force as on the date of grant. ( 5 ) I will deal with the first contention urged for the petitioner. By a perusal of the impugned order Annexure-A made by the assistant commissioner, it is true that he has not recorded any finding on the question whether the applicant respondent no. 3 was a person representing S. C. or s. t. this is an important question because it is a question of jurisdiction. ( 6 ) I carefully went through the original records produced by Sri Siddagangaiah, learned high court govt. Pleader. The assistant commissioner during the course of the enquiry, recorded the statement of the parties including that of kariyappa-third respondent. In the statement, kariyappa, the applicant has clearly stated that he is the person representing adi Karnataka community. ( 6 ) I carefully went through the original records produced by Sri Siddagangaiah, learned high court govt. Pleader. The assistant commissioner during the course of the enquiry, recorded the statement of the parties including that of kariyappa-third respondent. In the statement, kariyappa, the applicant has clearly stated that he is the person representing adi Karnataka community. Secondly, m. g. shekarappa, the petitioner herein, though filed objections to the show-cause notice issued to him in the enquiry, has nowhere contended that kariyappa or his father original grantee, was not a person representing S. C. or s. t. further, the question was not raised in the. Appeal. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, in view of the acceptable material evidence, there is no difficulty for this court to hold that rangappa, original grantee being of adi Karnataka caste, which is recognised as S. C. in the state of karnataka, his son kariyappa is entitled for seeking reliefs under the act. Therefore, the first contention fails. ( 8 ) IT is true that in the proceedings of the assistant commissioner, there is amention of survey No. 104. The assistant commissioner did not verify the correctness of the sy. Number that came to be granted in favour of rangappa by the competent authority by an order made on 29-4-1955. However, the assistant commissioner in paragraph 5 has mentioned that 4 acres 10 guntas in sy. No. 104 of arabagatta village, honnali taluk, shimoga district, came to be granted in favour of one rangappa, father of the third respondent, by the competent authority under the land grant rules. There is no doubt in that because I also verified the extract of the grant made by the competent authority. As found in the original records, the grant was made free of cost in favour of a. k. rangappa by the deputy commissioner in his proceedings No. R2/dd/138/1954-55, on 29-4-1955. Therefore, it is clear that the land granted in favour of rangappa was in sy. No. 103 and the very granted land came to be sold, in favour of one chikkappa and the petitioner herein. Therefore, it is nobody's case that the land sold in favour of the petitioner is not a granted land. Hence there is no difficulty in recording a finding that one acres of land that came to be sold in favour of the petitioner is in sy. No. 103. Therefore, it is nobody's case that the land sold in favour of the petitioner is not a granted land. Hence there is no difficulty in recording a finding that one acres of land that came to be sold in favour of the petitioner is in sy. No. 103. Thus the mistake found in the proceedings of the assistant commissioner referring to s. No. 104 is corrected as 103. ( 9 ) THE third contention of Sri Gopal to remand the matter for fresh enquiry on the ground of no opportunity t the petitioner, is also untenable for the reason that the petitioner was represented by a counsel who argued the case before assistant commissioner. ( 10 ) OF course, there is a mistake in the order made by the assistant commissioner regarding the period of non-alienation. He held that the prohibition was for 10 years. Admittedly, the land was granted on 29-4-1955 when Rule 43 (8) as amended by notification dated 4-8-1953 was in force and according to it, the granted land shall not be alienated for a period 20 years, whether on upset price or reduced upset price. To this extent, the order made by assistant commissioner is wrong. The pwtitioner purchased the laud on 8-7-1974 i. e. within the prohibitory period of 20 years. Therefore, contravention of the condition of grant is proved. The sale of the land in favour of the petitioner has to be declared as null and void. The assistant commissioner has ultimately done so, which has been approved by the deputy commissioner. Hence, I do not see any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned herein. ( 11 ) THE writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. However, the assistant commissioner is directed to permit the petitioner to harvest the crops standing on the land on or before 31-12-1992. --- *** --- .