P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the Order dated 16-9-1991, the copy of which has been produced as annexure-d, passed by the second respondent confirming the Order dated 22-7-1989, the copy of which has been produced as annexure-c, passed by the third respondent declaring the sale of land measuring 3 acres 14 guntas in survey No. 11 of gummareddypura village, srinivasapura taluk, kolar district, made by one gopalappa in favour of the petitioner as null and void and further directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the said land to the said gopalappa (deceased 4th respondent ). ( 2 ) THE brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition, are these: land, measuring 2 acres in survey No. 11 of gummareddypura village, srinivasapura taluk, kolar district, was granted to the deceased 4th respondent one gopalappa, by means-of Order dated 21-9-1954 with a condition that the said land should not be alienated by the grantee for a period of 20 years from the date of the grant. Sub-rule (8) of rule 43 of the mysore land revenue code, 1888 and rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"), which was framed by the state in exercise of its power under Section 233 of the land revenue code, also prohibited the alienation of the land granted to the depressed class of persons for an upset price or reduced upset price for a period of 20 years from the date of the grant. Pursuant to the grant made in favour of the said gopalappa, saguvali chit dated 11th september 1954 also was issued to the said gopalappa putting him in possession of the said 2 acres of land. Saguvali chit specifically provided that the land granted should not be alienated for a period of 20 years. Thereafter, on the recommendation made by the divisional commissioner, bangalore division, another extent of land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas comprised in survey No. 11 of gummareddypura village, was granted to the said gopalappa at an upset price of Rs. Saguvali chit specifically provided that the land granted should not be alienated for a period of 20 years. Thereafter, on the recommendation made by the divisional commissioner, bangalore division, another extent of land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas comprised in survey No. 11 of gummareddypura village, was granted to the said gopalappa at an upset price of Rs. 50/- per acre subject to recovery of back assessment from the year of the original grant made in favour of the said gopalappa by the government in exercise of the power vested in rule 43, by means of the Order dated 24-6-1966, the copy of which has been produced as annexure-b. Since the major dispute in this petition revolves round the said 1 acre 14 guntas of land, which has been granted as per annexure-b, it is useful to extract the said Order, which reads thus:subsequently, by means of a registered sale deed dated 26-3-1967, the petitioner purchased the entire extent of 3 acres 14 guntas of land in the said survey No. 11, which comprised of 2 acres of land originally granted to the deceased 4th respondent-gopalappa by means of the grant Order dated 21-9-1954 and the subsequent grant Order dated 24-6-1966. On the application filed by the deceased 4th respondent, under Section 5 (1) of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978, the third respondent passed the Order at annexure-c, which came to be affirmed by the second respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner. ( 3 ) SRI b. t. parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly submitted that though the petitioner has challenged the orders to the entire extent of 3 acres 14 guntas, which was purchased by the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed dated 26-3-1967, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and with a view to give a quietus to the litigation, the petitioner would give up his challenge to the extent of 2 acres, which was granted to the said gopalappa by means of the Order dated 21-9-1954 and he has no objection for this court confirming the orders impugned in so far as they relate to 2 acres of land in survey No. 11. However, in so far as 1 acre 14 guntas of land which was granted to the said gopalappa subsequently is concerned; he submitted that the orders impugned are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside on that ground. According to him, the said extent of land was not sold by the original grantee in violation of either the terms of the grant or the law governing the grant and therefore the provisions of the ACT cannot be made applicable in so far as the said 1 acre 14 guntas of land is concerned. It is bis further submission that as can be seen from the Order at annexure-b, the land in question came to be granted to the grantee for an upset price of Rs. 50/- per acre by the state after relaxing rule 42 of the rules in exercise of the power vested under rule 43-l of the rules. According to the learned counsel, in respect of the land granted for an upset price, there was no provision made in the rules which prohibited the alienation of the land within any particular period. In this connection, he drew my attention to sub-rule (4) of rule 43-g of the rules, which reads thus:according to the learned counsel, it is only in the case where the grant was made free of cost or was made at a price which was less than the full market value, the grant made could be subject to a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land. He further submitted that since the land in question was granted for an upset price, the grant Order at Annexure-B did not impose a condition on the grantee that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. He further submitted that there is no saguvali chit issued to the petitioner as has been done in respect of the said 2 acres of land providing that the grantee should not alienate the land for a period of 15 years and that since the grant Order (annexure-b) specifically states that the grant was for an upset price of Rs. 50/-, it is not permissible to draw an inference that the grant was made for a reduced upset price. 50/-, it is not permissible to draw an inference that the grant was made for a reduced upset price. He referred to the definition of "upset price" provided under sub-rule (2) of rule 43, which reads thus: " (2) the "upset price" shall not be arbitrarily fixed but shall represent the actual market value of the land, as nearly as it can be ascertained by local enquiries and by the examination of records of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood, and if necessary, of the registration statistics relating to them". He submitted that it is not permissible to draw an inference that the upset price fixed was not the market price as provided under rule 43 (2) of the rules. Since the Order (annexure-b) clearly states that the land was granted on payment of upset price of Rs. 50/-, respondents 2 and 3 ought to have held that there is no violation of either the terms of the grant on the law governing the grant of the land in question. He further submitted that at any event of the matter, the orders impugned in so far as 1 acre 14 guntas of land is concerned, are liable to be quashed as both the authorities have not assigned any reason in support of their finding that the land in question came to be sold in violation of either the terms of the grant or the law governing the grant. In other words, his submission is that the impugned orders are not speaking orders and that there is no application of mind by both the authorities with regard to the claim of the petitioner in respect of 1 acre 14 guntas of land is concerned. ( 4 ) SRI m. Siddagangaiah, learned High Court government pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, while he was unable to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are not speaking orders, tried to support the orders impugned on the ground that the upset price fixed is not the market price and it is only a reduced market price and this has to be inferred from the fact that the upset price fixed is only Rs. 50/- per acre. 50/- per acre. In support of his submission, he relied upon a decision of this Court in Basappa v Special Deputy Commissioner, chitradurga district and others and also the division bench decision of this court in G. S. Virupakshappa v Hanumantha and others. ( 5 ) SRI jawahar babu, learned counsel for supplemental respondents 4 (a) to (f)legal heirs of deceased respondent-4, adopted the submissions of the learned government pleader and submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders impugned. He further submitted that the land in question came to be granted to the said gopalappa in view of the fact that he was in unauthorised occupation of the land in question even before the grant of the said land by means of the Order annexure-b. He also submitted that the upset price mentioned in the Order Annexure-B was not the market value which was required to be fixed by the authority as required under rule 43 (2) of the rules. He further submitted that the grant of the land by means of the Order Annexure-B must be construed as a grant made subject to the same terms and conditions, on which 2 acres of land was earlier granted. In support of his submissions, he also relied upon the decisions of this court in basappa's case, supra and virupakshappa's case, supra. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the contentions advanced by the partiesthe only question, which arises for my consideration in this petition, is whether the land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas, which was granted to late gopalappa, was granted for an upset price and if it is so, whether the said land came to be sold by the said gopalappa in contravention of sub-rule (4) of rule 43-g of the rules. ( 7 ) THE Order annexure-b, extracted above, states that theland in question was granted at an upset price of Rs. 50/- per acre subject to the recovery of back assessment from the year of the original grant. Sub-rule (2) of rule 43 of the rules provided that the upset price shall not be arbitrarily fixed, but shall represent the actual market value of the land as nearly as it case be ascertained by local enquiries and by examination of records of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood and if necessary of the registration statistics relating to them. In view of the mandate of sub-rule (2) of rule 43, it is not possible to infer and take the view that upset price fixed at Rs. 50/- is not the market value. As can be seen from the Order (annexure-b), the grant has been made on the basis of the recommendation made by the divisional commissioner. The authorities, who are required to discharge their statutory duties, are expected to have discharged their duties in terms of the mandate of the law. Further, even if the upset price is fixed with reference to the market value, it is open to the state government, which granted the land, to waive the upset price either totally or part thereof in exercise of the power conferred on it under rule 43-g of the rules when the grant is made in favour of persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and other applicants who are unable to pay occupancy price on account of poverty, upto Rs. 200/ -. Though such power could have been exercised by the government, the said power has not been exercised and upset price fixed has not been waived either in toto or any portion thereof while granting the land in question as per the Order annexure-b. If either the entire market price or a portion thereof has been waived, there would have been a reference to the same in the Order annexure-b. Therefore, I am of the view that the land in question came to be granted to late gopalappa at an upset price of Rs. 50/ -. ( 8 ) NO doubt, as rightly pointed out by Sri siddagangaiah, who relied upon the decision in virupakshappa's case, supra, that though there is no condition provided in the grant Order prohibiting the alienation of the land granted for a particular number of years, the provisions of the rules can be read into the grant. Rule 43 (4) of the rules, which governed the grant, prohibits the alienation of the land in question by the grantee for a period of 15 years from the date of taking possession of the granted land, provided the grant was made free of cost or is made at a price which is less than the full market value. Rule 43 (4) of the rules, which governed the grant, prohibits the alienation of the land in question by the grantee for a period of 15 years from the date of taking possession of the granted land, provided the grant was made free of cost or is made at a price which is less than the full market value. As stated earlier, unless the upset price fixed is waived off in full or in part, the provisions of sub-rule (4) of rule 43-g cannot be attracted. I am of the view that the land in question was not sold in contravention of either the terms of the grant of the land in question or sub-rule (4) of rule 43-g of the rules. Therefore, the orders impugned passed by respondents 2 and 3 are liable to be quashed. In the decision in basappa's case, supra, this court, while considering the stipulations in the grant Order and the saguvali chit, wherein it was specifically provided that the grantee should not alienate the land for a period of 15 years from the date of the grant, took the view that upset price fixed was not the market price. The principle laid down in the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of this case in view of the specific observation made in the Order (annexure-b) stating that the land in question was granted on payment of upset price of Rs. 50/- per acre. Even in virupakshappa's case, supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is specifically observed that out of Rs. 500/- fixed as market price, a sum of Rs. 200/- was waived. Therefore, it is clear that in the said case, the land was granted for a reduced upset price. That is, not the position in the present case. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I make the following:order ( 10 ) THE Order dated 16-9-1991 (annexure-d) passed by the second respondent and the Order dated 22-7-1989 (annexure-c) passed by the third respondent in so far as they relate to 2 acres of land in survey No. 11 of gummareddypura village, srinivasapura taluk, kolar district, which was granted to late gopalappa by means of the Order dated 21-9-1954, are confirmed. The said orders at annexures-c and d in so far as they relate to 1 acre 14 guntas in the same survey number, which was granted to gopalappa by means of the Order (annexure-b), are quashed. ( 11 ) IF either the deceased 4th respondent or the legal representatives of the deceased 4th respondent have not yet been put in possession of the said 2 acres of land in survey No. 11, the third respondent is directed to put supplemental respondents 4 (a) to (f) in possession of the said 2 acres of land as expeditiously as possible and at any event of the matter, not later than three months from the date of receipt of this Order after issuing notice both to the petitioner and respondents 4 (a) to (f ). ( 12 ) FURTHER, in the event of either deceased respondent 4 or supplemental respondents 4 (a) to (f) have been put in possession of the entire extent of 3 acres 14 guntas of land in survey No. 11, the third respondent is directed to put the petitioner in possession of 1 acre 14 guntas of land, which was granted to late, gopalappa by means of the Order (annexure-b), as expeditiously as possible and at any event of the matter, not later than three months from the date of receipt, of this order. While identifying the 2 acres of land, in respect of which the orders at annexures- c and d are confirmed, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to have due regard to the identification made by supplemental respondents 4 (a) to (f ). ( 13 ) IN terms stated above, this petition is disposed of. ( 14 ) SRI m. Siddagangaiah, learned High Court government pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .