M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) ALTHOUGH this writ petition is posted for preliminary hearing in B-Group, by consent of learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition was taken for hearing. Accordingly, i heard the learned counsel on both sides. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have called in question the correctness and legality of the orders made by the Dy. Commissioner and the Asst. Commissioner at Annexures-B and C respectively. They have sought for quashing them on more than one ground. ( 3 ) THE undisputed facts as disclosed from the impugned order as well as the pleadings in the writ petition are; By an order made by the Competent Authority on 29-12-1959, 5 acres of land came to be granted in Sy. No. 5 of Kyatanamale Village in Parashurampura Hobli, Chitradurga Dist. , in favour of the first petitioner, Macchappa, applying the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, subject to certain conditions.- One such condition was that the granted land shall not be alienated by the grantee for a period of 15 years. Despite the said condition the granted land came to be sold in favour of the first respondent - Hanumanna, by a registered sale deed dated 24-8-1977 for a valuable consideration. ( 4 ) IT is stated that eversince the date of sale of the land in favour of the first respondent, he is in enjoyment of the said land undisturbed. ( 5 ) AFTER 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 first petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner with an application for the relief under the said Act. His case was that since the granted land came to be sold in contravention of the condition of the grant, the Assistant Commissioner shall declare the alienation as null and void and restore the - granted land in his favour. The Assistant Commissioner, having heard both the parties, held an enquiry in case No. SC PTL 3/1988-89. His case was that since the granted land came to be sold in contravention of the condition of the grant, the Assistant Commissioner shall declare the alienation as null and void and restore the - granted land in his favour. The Assistant Commissioner, having heard both the parties, held an enquiry in case No. SC PTL 3/1988-89. During the course of the enquiry, he provided opportunity to both the parties, recorded their evidence and after considering the same, passed the order, Annexure-B, holding that there was a condition imposed in the Saguvali Chit issued by the granting authority, that granted land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years, and that in contravention of the said condition, the land came to be sold before the expiry of that period, thus he declared the sale as null and void and directed restoration of the land to the original grantee. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, respondent purchaser took up the matter before the Deputy Commissioner in appeal under Section 5-A of the Act. The D. C. after hearing both the learned counsel, passed an order, Annexure-C, in reversal of the order of the Asst. Commissioner on the sole ground that the conclusion of the Asst. Commissioner that the period of non-alienation imposed in the grant was 15 years, was incorrect. According to him, it was 10 years as the grant was on payment of upset price and the alienation having - taken place after the period of 10 years, it was valid. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel who took me through the impugned orders, Annexures-Band C, submitted that the interpretation of non-alienation clause by the Deputy commissioner was wrong. He further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner was in error in following the ruling of this Court in Onkarappa v Sanna Neelappa, 1990 (1) Kar. L. J. 54 : ILR 1990 (1) Kar. 727 as the learned Judge who disposed of the onkarappa's. case, failed to notice the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in lakshmamma v State of Karnataka, 1983 (1) Kar. L. J. 417. Indeed the argument is that, had the Deputy Commissioner noticed the ruling in Lakshmamma's case, where the. L. J. 54 : ILR 1990 (1) Kar. 727 as the learned Judge who disposed of the onkarappa's. case, failed to notice the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in lakshmamma v State of Karnataka, 1983 (1) Kar. L. J. 417. Indeed the argument is that, had the Deputy Commissioner noticed the ruling in Lakshmamma's case, where the. Division Bench has interpreted the provisions of the rule relating to imposition of condition against alienation of the land granted under the Karnataka land Grant Rules for the purpose of understanding the - correct period of non-alienation perhaps, the Deputy Commissioner would have dismissed the appeal. ( 8 ) SRI B. M. Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-1vehemently argued that the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner that the period of non-alienation applicable in a case like this should be 10 years and not 15 years was justified as the grant was on payment of upset price. The Division Bench in lakshmamma's case had no occasion to deal with the question whether the grant of land was on payment of upset price. Therefore, there was no need for this Court to follow the ruling of this Court in Lakshmamma's case. In support of his contension that the grant was on upset price, he relied upon the Saguvali Chit, Annexure-A, indicating that a certain sum of money was imposed and collected by the competent authority. He further submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that the period of non-alienation was 15 years, the sale made on 24-8-1977 in favour of respondent-1 was beyond the period of 15 years because the grant was made on 20-12-1959 which should be taken into account for ascertaining the period of non-alienation and not the date of Saguvali Chit. He further contended that the court must also take into consideration the position of the purchaser who will be put into irreparable loss in the event of the land being restored in favour of the grantee. Lastly, he submitted that improvements on the land after sale in favour of the purchaser must also be taken into consideration for the purpose of - equity between the parties. Lastly, he submitted that improvements on the land after sale in favour of the purchaser must also be taken into consideration for the purpose of - equity between the parties. ( 9 ) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader produced the original records and submitted that the question of law arising in this writ petition is fully covered by the decision of the Division Bench in Lakshmamma's case and it is binding on this court also. In order to appreciate the rival contentions urged before me, I perused the original records. The records contain the certificate of grant in favour of the first petitioner and also the certified copy of the sale deed made by the grantee in favour of the first respondent-purchaser. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the legal contentions urged before me, the short questionthat arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Deputy commissioner was right in holding that the period of non-alienation applicable to the case was 10 years and not 15 years as imposed in the grant. My answer to this question is emphatically 'no' for reasons stated hereafter. ( 11 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, 5 acres of land came to be granted in favour of the first petitioner by the competent authority as stated above by issuing Saguvali Chit on 4-5-1967 and the non-alienation clause imposed clearly states that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The Assistant Commissioner also after considering several contentions urged before him held that according to the Land grant Rules if the land is granted free of cost then the non-alienation clause would be 15 years, and if the grant is made for an upset price then the said condition would be 10 years. Unfortunately the learned Deputy Commissioner - failed to apply his mind to these aspects while recording his finding contrary to the one recorded by the Assistant Commissioner. Unfortunately the learned Deputy Commissioner - failed to apply his mind to these aspects while recording his finding contrary to the one recorded by the Assistant Commissioner. ( 12 ) THE question whether the period of non-alienation should be computed from the date of grant or from the date of issue of grant certificate (Saguvali Chit) to the grantee, has been settled as far back as in 1983 by the Division Bench of this Court in Lakshmama's case in - which it has been held in paragraph 74 and 75 at pages 428 and 429 as follows :"on an application made for grant before the competent officer, the same is processed by him and thereafter an order is made by him or the appellate authority or the revisional authority that deals with the same, when a grant is made, a grant certificate, a title deed or a Saguvali Chit is issued to the grantee demarketing the extent the extent and the boundary of the land granted to him. Without such a grant certificate or title deed, the grantee cannot enter on the land and cultivate the same, though there is a grant order in his favour. A grant and a grant certificate cannot be treated as two different and distinct matters divorced from each other. Without a grant certificate, the grant is not really effectuated. From this it follows that the construction suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the rules and more so on Rule 43 (B) (5) of the mysore Land Revenue Rules before their amendment in 1960, is too literal and will not carry out the scheme and object of the rules. 75. On the above discussion, we hold that even where the Rules employ the term 'the date of the grant' that term should be read as the date from which the grant certificate is actually issued to the grantee and not from the date the order was made in his favour. " ( 13 ) IN the present case, the Saguvali Chit has been issued to petitioner-1 on 4-5-1967 and the land has been sold on 24-8-1977 in favour of respondent-1, i. e. , within a period of 15 years. ( 14 ) NOW I proceed to consider whether the grant in question was free of cost or on ayment of upset price. ( 14 ) NOW I proceed to consider whether the grant in question was free of cost or on ayment of upset price. The Saguvali Chit (Annexure-A) does disclose nothing except that a sum of Rs. 45/- was collected from the grantee towards Kimath and phodi fee, to show that the grant was on payment of upset price. I have considered at length similar question in Basappa v Special Deputy Commissioner, 1991 (2) Kar. LJ. 480 : ILR 1991 Kar. 1321 and held that upset price of the land granted must be equivalent to the market value on the date of grant. Therefore, mere imposition of rs. 25/- to the extent of 5 acres of land involved in the case cannot be said to be the upset price. Further the granting authority having satisfied itself that the grant is free of cost rightly imposed non-alienation clause of 15 years. Therefore, the assistant Commissioner was right in his conclusion that the period of non-alienation was 15 years, but the Deputy Commissioner was in error in taking a different view that it was 10 years and not 15 years. ( 15 ) NOW it is clear that the grant in question was a free grant and that the period of non-alienation was 15 years. Having regard to the sale on 24-8-1977 in favour of respondent-1 with reference to the date of Saguvali Chit issued on 4-5-1967 the alienation was effected within the prohibitory period of 15 years. Therefore the assistant Commissioner was right in cancelling the alienation and restoring the land to the original grantee. ( 16 ) AS regards the reliance placed on the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court by the learned counsel for petitioners, though the decision was subsequent to the Division Bench ruling in Lakshmamma's case, nobody brought before the learned Single Judge the ruling in Lakshmamma's case. Therefore the learned single Judge without notice to the Division Bench decision might have rendered that decision. However, I am bound by the decision of the Division Bench, hence I follow it. ( 17 ) NOW considering the contention with regard to improvement made to the and after purchase by respondent-1 this Court cannot grant any relief in that behalf in the absence of the specific provision either in the Act or in the Rules under which the - land was granted. ( 17 ) NOW considering the contention with regard to improvement made to the and after purchase by respondent-1 this Court cannot grant any relief in that behalf in the absence of the specific provision either in the Act or in the Rules under which the - land was granted. However, I think it is necessary to make a mention that though this Court has already observed in S. V. Krishnappa v State of Kamataka, ILR 1982 Kar. 1310 that the Government should take in to consideration the position of the purchasers who having purchased the granted lands in contravention of the condition of the grant and having made improvements to the land by investing huge amount and sweating hard, had to go with bare hands without any compensation for the loss of the land, and pass such legislation as is beneficial to them, the State government hither to has done nothing. ( 18 ) BUT, I find some fairness in the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that respondent-1 being in continuous possession and cultivation of the land by virtue of the stay orders, has this year, raised certain crops on the land, that the crop will be ready for harvest shortly and therefore he may be permitted to harvest the crop before his eviction. In the result, I make the following; ( 19 ) THIS petition is allowed, the order of the Deputy Commissioner impugned at annexur-C is hereby quashed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner at annexure-B is restored. However, I direct the Assistant Commissioner to permit the petitioners to harvest the crops standing on the land on or before 31-12-1991, before his eviction. No costs. --- *** --- .