M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has sought for quashing the order made by the deputy commissioner-2nd respondent at Annexure 'b' for the reasons set out in the writ petition. ( 2 ) A few facts that are necessary for the dispdsal of the writ petition are asfollows:- the undisputed facts as disclosed from the impugned orders of the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner and the pleadings in the writ petition are that 10 acres of land in sy. No. 57, situated in the village mylakatte, chikkanayakanahalli taluk, tumkur district, came to be granted under the Karnataka land grant rules by the competent authority by an order made on 21-6-1960, in favour of b. Sanjeevaiah s/o bheemiah, the petitioner herein on condition that the granted land shall not be alienated for 15 years. Accordingly, a saguvali chit was issued on 24-11-1963. ( 3 ) IT is again not in dispute that out of the granted land 2 acres came to be sold by the grantee in favour of pandurangaiah s/o kariyappa-the 5th respondent by a registered sale deed dated 23-8-1967. Again, by a registered sale deed dated 28-11-1966, the grantee sold 3 acres of land in favour of kariyappa s/o mudlappa, who sold it to respondent No. 6 on 27-6-1974. Again, out of the granted land 2 acres 20 guntas came to be sold in favour of S. Ramakrishnaiah, s/o srinivasaiah by a registered sale deed dated 26-5-1968 who sold it to respondent No. 8 on 19-12-1969 and the remaining 2 acres 20 guntas came to be sold in favour of ismail-respondent No. 7 by a registered sale deed dated 8-4-1968. Accordingly, the purchasers have been enjoying their respective lands right from the date of purchase. ( 4 ) ON the coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978, ('the act' for short), the grantee-b. Sanjeevaiah approached the assistant commissioner seeking for the reliefs under the Act, the case of the applicant-petitioner was that as the granted land came to be sold in contravention of the condition of the grant, sections 4 and 5 of the act were attracted, for granting him reliefs thereunder. ( 5 ) THE assistant commissioner-3rd respondent herein, having notified both the parties, held an enquiry as required by law. He provided an opportunity to all the persons concerned, collected evidence both oral as well as documentary, and, on the basis of the evidence, declared that the transfers of granted land being in contravention of the condition of the grant, were null and void. He further directed to restore the granted land in favour of the grantee-sanjeevaiah, in terms of Section 5 of the act. This is clear from Annexure 'a' dated 28-4-1988. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by this order of the assistant commissioner, respondents 5 to 8 filed an appeal in ra sc. St/ (ptcl) 10/1988-89 before the deputy commissioner, tumkur, under Section 5-a of the act. The learned deputy commissioner, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, allowed the appeal in reversal of the order of the assistant commissioner on the ground that the petitioner-grantee was a person representing nayaka community and that community had not been declared as scheduled caste when the land was granted in his favour. On this sole ground the order of the assistant commissioner came to be reversed. Hence, this petition, ( 7 ) SRI P. A. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner-grantee was granted the land in question on the ground that he represented depressed class and that even though the community 'nayaka' had not been declared as scheduled caste or scheduled tribe by the president of India under the Constitution as on date of grant, still persons representing that community were considered by the competent authority as persons representing depressed class. He further argued that, subsequently the community 'nayaka' also was recognised as scheduled tribe by the presidential ordinance No. 3/1991 published in the extraordinary gazette of India, on the 19th of april, 1991, and that the deputy commissioner ought to have applied his mind to this fact when he recorded a finding against the grantee-petitioner. ( 8 ) A division bench of this court had an occasion to deal with similar question in krishnappa v State of Karnataka and others as reported in ILR 1982 KAR. 1310, wherein in paragraph 65 it has been held as follows:- "65. It is true that the terms 'the scheduled castes' and 'the scheduled tribes' occurring in the Act, have the meaning assigned to them in the constitution. 1310, wherein in paragraph 65 it has been held as follows:- "65. It is true that the terms 'the scheduled castes' and 'the scheduled tribes' occurring in the Act, have the meaning assigned to them in the constitution. That does not mean that castes and tribes which are included in the list of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes under the constitution, did not exist prior to the commencement of the constitution. Most of those castes and tribes were known as depressed classes, harijans, tribal people and girijans. If the government had granted a land to any person belonging to a caste or a tribe which, after the advent of the Constitution came to be included in the list of scheduled castes or the lists of scheduled tribes, there is no reason why such land should not be regarded as coming with the ambit of the term 'granted lands' as defined in clause (b) of Section 3. There is also no reason why the Provisions of the act should not apply to such lands. Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of Sri Shivashankar Bhat that alienations of lands granted prior to 26th january, 1950 cannot be invalidated under the act nor can such lands be resumed. " Thus, having regard to the law laid down by this court in krishnappa 's case, I must hold that the deputy commissioner is not justified in reversing the order of the assistant commissioner merely because the community 'nayaka' was not recognised as scheduled tribe on the date of grant. Yet, that community was in existence and the persons belonging to that community were known as depressed class. Therefore, the land was granted to the petitioner under that scheme, otherwise not. Now, there is no problem because amongst others, community 'nayaka' is also recognised as scheduled tribe. Viewed from the above, the order of deputy commissioner cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) IN the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure 'b' is quashed. The ordefe of the assistant commissioner Annexure 'a' is restored. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .