M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order made by the assistant commissioner at Annexure 'a' and also another order made earlier at Annexure 'b' and he has sought for quashing the same. Indeed, the petitioner has also sought for quashing the order of the deputy commissioner in the appeal at Annexure 'c for the reasons set out in the writ petition. ( 2 ) A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are asfollows: small piece of land measuring 2 acres 12 guntas in sy. No. 89/10 of belagumba village, kasaba hobli, arsikere taluk, hassan district, came to be granted in favour of marigaiah, husband of the petitioner by the competent authority under the Mysore land grant rules by an order made on 17-11-1947, subject to certain conditions. One such condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land to any person at any time. The fact remains that out of granted land, 1 acre came to be sold in favour of late T. S. lingappa, 3rd respondent herein by a registered sale deed dated 8-10-1970, and the remaining granted land came to be sold in favour of the 4th respondent-chikkanna, by a registered sale deed dated 26-8-1971, for valuable consideration. Thus, 2 acres 12 guntas of land came to be alienated in their favour. Accordingly the purchasers have been enjoying the land in question from the dates of sale. ( 3 ) 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'), suo motu action was taken by the assistant commissioner, hassan sub-division, 2nd respondent herein, in proceedings No. Lnd SC and ST 78 (ask) 87:1979-80. These proceedings came to be initiated based upon the report sent up by the tahsildar on 18-8-1979. After initiating the proceedings suo motu, the assistant commissioner proceeded to pass an order on 22nd may, 1980, as per Annexure 'b'. In that order all that the assistant commissioner stated was that the granted land came to be sold after the expiry of 15 years. Therefore, there was no need for taking further action the matter. After initiating the proceedings suo motu, the assistant commissioner proceeded to pass an order on 22nd may, 1980, as per Annexure 'b'. In that order all that the assistant commissioner stated was that the granted land came to be sold after the expiry of 15 years. Therefore, there was no need for taking further action the matter. ( 4 ) BY referring to the averments made in the writ petition it is seen that, according to the petitioner Smt. Ramamma, widow of late marigaiah, her husband marigaiah, original grantee, died and passed away some time in the year 1978, and she was not aware of the proceedings before the assistant commissioner when Annexure 'b' came to be passed. She had no opportunity to participate in the enquiry held by the assistant commissioner. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that marigaiah-original grantee was alive when the impugned order Annexure 'b' came to be passed on 22nd may, 1980, as he died and passed away later. This is not material for the purpose of disposing of this matter. What is important is the procedure adopted by the assistant commissioner, while conducting proceedings under sections 4 and 5 of the act. I will come to the question of law and procedure adopted by the deputy commissioner a little later. ( 6 ) THE case of the petitioner is that she had no notice of the proceedings beforethe assistant commissioner culminating in the impugned order made in the month of may, 1980, that she further made an application before the assistant commissioner, in the year 1988, seeking benefit of the act on the ground that the granted land was sold by her husband during his life time in contravention of the conditions of the grant and that therefore she was entitled for the relief. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to her, the assistant commissioner, without holding a proper enquiry and without giving her opportunity of being heard, has given an endorsement, Annexure 'a', dated 26-9-1989, which reads as follows:aggrieved by this endorsement of the assistant commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal before the deputy commissioner, hassan district-1st respondent, under Section 5-a of the act. In that appeal, she challenged the correctness of the endorsement Annexure 'a' as well as the order made at Annexure 'b' for the grounds taken in the appeal. In that appeal, she challenged the correctness of the endorsement Annexure 'a' as well as the order made at Annexure 'b' for the grounds taken in the appeal. However, the deputy commissioner dismissed the appeal by his order dated the 13th of august, 1990, at Annexure 'c, solely on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The learned deputy commissioner referring to the Provisions of Section 5-a of the act observed during the course of his order that only the aggrieved purchaser, as against the order of the assistant commissioner under sections 4 and 5 of the act can avail of benefit of the appeal under Section 5-a. However, to that extent the deputy commissioner is right in doing so. This court cannot find fault with the conclusion so reached on the question of maintainability. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, during the course of the order at page 5, the learned deputy commissioner referring to the salient facts of the case, observed as follows:"the learned assistant commissioner had taken up the case leading to the order dated 22-5-1980, suo moto on the report of the tahsildar, arsikere. The learned assistant commissioner has recorded clearly in the preamble of the order that notices have been served on all the relevant persons and has further stated that accordingly the purchasers of the suit land (respondents 1 and 2) have been heard on 16-7-1979 and 5-5-1980. There is no evidence of the appellant having been served with any notice in the case and having been heard in the matter, nor about his having been communicated of the said order. The appellant has brought these aspects in the appeal memo and these have been further argued and agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant. "therefore, the learned deputy commissioner rightly observed that when the order Annexure 'b' came to be passed by the assistant commissioner on 22nd may, 1980, neither the original grantee marigaiah nor his widow ramamma had been served with the notice, as required by law so as to enable him/her to have an opportunity of being heard. It is well-known principle that when the rights to immoveable properties of the parties arc sought to be adjudicated upon, the court is bound to provide an opportunity to all the concerned persons of being heard in the matter before any order is passed affecting rights of such parties. It is well-known principle that when the rights to immoveable properties of the parties arc sought to be adjudicated upon, the court is bound to provide an opportunity to all the concerned persons of being heard in the matter before any order is passed affecting rights of such parties. ( 9 ) THE procedure that has to be adopted in an enquiry is provided in Rule 3 of the rules framed under the act. In substance, on receipt of the application the assistant commissioner has to get the information furnished by the applicant, then issue notice to the opposite parly to file objections, then fix up a date for hearing with notice to the parties and by affixing a copy of such notice on the notice board of his office and the concerned taluk office, consider the objections raised and then pass appropriate orders. Unfortunately, in the instant case as observed by the deputy commissioner himself in his Order, no such steps had been taken by the assistant commissioner, to notify the original grantee or his widow ramamma so as to enable him/her to participate in the enquiry. On the other hand, the assistant commissioner proceeded to pass a cryptic order of one paragraph, which docs not disclose compliance with Rule 3 for the purpose of enquiry. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the assistant commissioner has blindly passed the Order, without applying his mind to the Provisions of the law to be followed in a ease like this. It is high time that the government should post such officers as arc well trained and experienced in matters of this kind so that miscarriage of Justice is avoided. ( 11 ) I will now come to the question of law arising in this case. ( 12 ) ADMITTEDLY, the land in question was granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 17-11-1947 when Rule 43 (8) as it stood originally, was in force. The said Rule provides for prohibition of transfer/or ever of the granted land. However, the land was admittedly sold in favour of respondents 3 and 4 on the dates referred to above, in contravention of the condition provided under the rules. In view of the said bar, irrespective of the period mentioned in the saguvali chit and the interpretation made by the authorities below the alienations have to be held null and void. However, the land was admittedly sold in favour of respondents 3 and 4 on the dates referred to above, in contravention of the condition provided under the rules. In view of the said bar, irrespective of the period mentioned in the saguvali chit and the interpretation made by the authorities below the alienations have to be held null and void. Accordingly I declare them as null and void. It is very unfortunate that, without applying the mind to the correctness of the law, the assistant commissioner proceeded to pass the order which was not only cryptic but also improper and illegal. On account of the mistake committed by the assistant commissioner in not understanding an4 applying the correct law, the poor applicant had to suffer. ( 13 ) IN the result, I make the following: ' order this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders, annexures 'a' and 'b' are quashed. The assistant commissioner is hereby directed to execute this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order and put the petitioner in possession of the land in question. No costs. ( 14 ) SEND a copy of this order to the chief secretary to the government of Karnataka, immediately, to take suitable action against the assistant commissioner concerned. ( 15 ) SRI M. Siddagangaiah, learned high court government pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 within 2 weeks. --- *** --- .