M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. ( 2 ) A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: *the undisputed facts as found from the pleading as well as in the impugned orders annexures-a and b arc that 4 acres of land in sy. No. (old No. 28) new No. 54 situate in cholapura village, hebbur hobli, tumkur taluk, was granted in favour of hutch byaliah, grandfather of byate thimmaiah, the 1st respondent herein, by the competent authority by an order made on 22-9-1933 under the erstwhile Mysore land grant rules carved out of Mysore land revenue code, subject to cerlain conditions. One such condition was thai the grantee shall not alienate the granted land to anyone at anytime. ( 3 ) THUS, during the course of the enjoyment of the granted land by the original grantee, 2 acres out of 4 acres of granted land came to be sold in favour of thimmaiah fora sum of Rs. 100/- bya registered sale deed da ted 13-6-1944 and the said thimmaiah, inturn, sold it to siddappa, s/o borcgowda, the petitioner herein, by a registered sale deed during the year 1964. ( 4 ) AFTER the coming into force the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), 1st respondent-byate thimmaiah, approached the assistant commissioner, 3rd respondent herein, with an application seeking for the relief under the act. His case was that since the granted land came to be sold in contravention of the condition of the grant, he would be entitled for the relief of declaration of the sale of granted land as null and void and restoration of it in ins favour. ( 5 ) THE assistant commissioner having held an enquiry, passed an order as perannexure-a declaring only 2 acres of land sold in favour of the petitioner as null and void and restoring the land to respondent-1. As regards the remaining land, he held that it was sold after the prohibitory period of 20 years. But, the assistant commissioner has not staled when and to whom the remaining land of 2 acres was sold. Without making a mention of it, he held that the said sale was beyond the prohibitory period of 20 years. As regards the remaining land, he held that it was sold after the prohibitory period of 20 years. But, the assistant commissioner has not staled when and to whom the remaining land of 2 acres was sold. Without making a mention of it, he held that the said sale was beyond the prohibitory period of 20 years. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said Order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section5-a of the act before the deputy commissioner who affirming the order of the assistant commissioner dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition. ( 7 ) HEARD learned counsel on both sides and perused the records. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the land was granted on 22-9-1933 in favour of the grand father of respondent 1. Rule 43 (8) as it stood as on the dale of grant imposed the condition that the land granted shall not be transferred. That means, alienation of such land was prohibiled forever. Therefore, alienation of the land, in the instant case, being contrary to the condition of the grant, has to be declared as null and void. The assistant commissioner has ultimately rightly done so. The deputy commissioner, appellate authority, also upheld the view taken by the assistant commissioner. Therefore, I do not see any good reason to interfere with their orders impugned herein, though their conclusion that the period of non-alienation was 10 years or 20 years as the case may be was incorrect. ( 9 ) THE contention that the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession of more than 30 years, cannot be accepted for the reason that, having regard to the date of his purchase of the land on 24-9-1964, he has not completed 30 years of long and continuous possession before the commencement of the act as held by the Supreme Court in sunkara Rajyalakshmi v State of Karnataka, ILR 1987 KAR. 2076, his claim being against the slate. 2076, his claim being against the slate. The decision of the privy (council in the secretary of state for India in council v debendra lal khan, 46 mlj 134, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the facls of the case on hand, for the reason that, in the instant case, the grant of land was subject to non-alienation for ever and any violation of the condition of the grant makes the grant liable to be cancelled and the land vested in the state free from all encumbrances, whereas in the decision cited, question of tacking possession of the mortgagee to that of mortgagor in respect of right to fishery in the river cossye arose for consideration. Therefore, considering the facts arose in that case, their lordships held that for the purpose of adverse possession, possession of the mortgagee might be tacked to that of the mortgagor. Such a question does not arise in this case. ( 10 ) VIEWED from these circumstances, I do not see any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .