M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing Annexures-A and B, the orders passed by the assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively, for the reasons set out in the writ petition. ( 2 ) IT is seen from the impugned orders as well as the pleadings in the writ petitionthat one acre 9 guntas of land in Sy. No. 65 situated in the Village Sathihalli, chickmagalur Taluk, was granted in favour of one Siddaiah, father of the third respondent herein, by an order made in proceedings No. DEP/dr/172/55-56 under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, subject to certain conditions. One such condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land for a period of 15 years. Accordingly, saguvali chit was also issued to him on 10-7-1957. ( 3 ) IT is an admitted fact that the granted land came to be sold in favour of The father of the petitioner herein by a registered sale deed dated 6-8-1962 tot valuable consideration. Thus from the date of sale, the father of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land. After the coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition and transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 the third respondent approached the Assistant commissioner with an application for granting him relief under the Act His case was that the granted land was sold in favour of the father of the petitioner, in contravention of the condition of ihe grant. Therefore, be was entitled for the reliefs under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner having made an enquiry held against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner approached this Court in W. P. No. 20074/1985 which came to be allowed and the matter was remitted for re-consideralion afresh. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the said order of this Court in the above writ petition, the matter came to be reconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner, afresh, after providing an opportunity to both parties to have their say in the matter. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the said order of this Court in the above writ petition, the matter came to be reconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner, afresh, after providing an opportunity to both parties to have their say in the matter. This time also, the assistant Commissioner made an order against the petitioner declaring the alienation as null and void and directing restoration of the land to respondent-3, on the ground that the alienation was made contrary to the condition of the grant. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5-A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, who having heard the learned counsel for the both parties, dismissed the appeal, upholding the view taken by the Assistant commissioner. Hence this petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged the following points:i) The grant in favour of the father of respondcnt-3 was not a free grant, but on payment of upset price, therefore, the non-alienation period applicable to the case was 10 years and not 15 years. ii) Since the petitioner has grown coffee plantation in the land in question by investing quite a good sum of money, in case the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that there was contravention of the condition of the grant, some other land may be given to him in exchange for the said land or, in the alternative sufficient compensation may be awarded. iii) The petitioner be ing in continuous possession of the land without interruption from the date of sale in favour of his father, he has acquired right to it by prescription. Therefore, his possession cannot be disturbed. iv) If the Court is reluctant to grant any of the reliefs sought for as above, all east the petitioner may be permitted to harvest coffee and orange fruits before taking any action to evict him from the land. I do not see any substance in any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, the land was sold within a period of five years from the date of grant. Therefore, whether it is a free grant or on upset price, does not matter. Secondly, either the Act or the Rules relating to grant of land do not provide for either compensation or land in exchange. In the absence of such a provision, the Court cannot grant relief in that behalf. Therefore, whether it is a free grant or on upset price, does not matter. Secondly, either the Act or the Rules relating to grant of land do not provide for either compensation or land in exchange. In the absence of such a provision, the Court cannot grant relief in that behalf. ( 7 ) COMING to the adverse possession, the petitioner has no case because as held by the Supreme Court in Sunkara Rajyalakshmi v State of Karnataka, ILR 1987 Kar. 2076, the period for the purpose of claiming adverse against the State is 30 years prior to the coming into force of the Act. The father of the petitioner having purchased the land in the year 1962 has not completed 30 years of uninterrupted possession of the land. Hence this contention also fails. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, on equity this Court has been invariably making orders in cases of this kind directing the Assistant Commissioner to permit the purchasers of the granted lands to harvest the crops standing on the lands, before their eviction and to draw Mahazar for improvement. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, having regard to the improvement made to the land in question by petitioner and his father, I direct the Assistant Commissioner to permit the petition to harvest the standing crops of Coffee and Orange by the end February, 1992 before any action is taken to evict him from the land. He is further directed to prepare an inventory showing the improvement effected to the land by the petitioner and his father from the date of sale. While doing so, the Assistant Commissioner shall also take into consideration the number of trees standing on the land and the market value of the said trees. HCGP files memo of appearance for respondents in 2 weeks. --- *** --- .