H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri m. Sivappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Shantha kumari, government pleader for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri n, devadas, Advocate for respondent 1. In this case an application under Section 5 of the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) ACT (act 2 of 1979) was made by the grantee who claimed himself to be a harijan i. e. , scheduled castes. According to the petitioner's case, the land was granted by the state on 7-5-1952 and saguvali chit was issued in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner's case has been that land had been granted free of cost. It was further alleged that as per terms of the grant, the grantee cannot and could not alienate the property. Petitioner's further case is that respondent 1 had illegally obtained the sale deed in respect of 8 guntas of land out of the land granted to the petitioner. That vide sale deed dated 6-5-1957, the sale was effected, and the sale was null and void being in violation of non-alienation clauses. The assistant commissioner-respondent 2 by his Order dated 18-3-1996 rejected petitioner's application without holding any due enquiry. ( 2 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the Order of the assistant commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal which had been dismissed by the deputy- commissioner viz. , 3rd respondent on the ground of want of jurisdiction. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved from the same, petitioner filed writ petition No. 4363 of 1991, which had been allowed by this court by Order dated 5-1-1996 and this court directed the deputy commissioner, mandya to entertain and decide the appeal. By Order dated 22-4-1996, learned deputy commissioner, mandya dismissed the petitioner's appeal with the observation and finding to the effect that even if there was a sale of the granted land between the appellant and respondent and even accepting there was sale transaction for consideration vide the sale deed dated 6-5-1957, respondents who actually acquired land under the void title deed or invalid title deed, perfected his title by adverse possession by long and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment for a period of more than 12 years and as such the sale transaction did fall outside the provisions of Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of certain lands) act, 1979. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved from the Order dated 22-4-1996 of the deputy commissioner, petitioner has come up before this court by the petition under article 226 of the constitution. I have heard Sri m. Sivappa with the assistance of Smt. L. Veena on behalf of petitioner, Sri n. Devadas, counsel for the respondent 1 and Smt. Shantha kumari, learned government pleader for respondents 2 and 3. ( 5 ) FROM the perusal of the Order it appears that appeal has been dismissed primarily on the ground that in accordance with the opinion of the deputy commissioner, the transferee or the alienee who is alleged to have purchased the land by sale deed dated 6-5-1957, had acquired right by prescription i. e. , by adverse possession on account of his having been in an uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of land for a period of 12 years or more and on this basis, he has opined and held that the provisions of the ACT 2 of 1979 does not apply to the case of such lands. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the deputy commissioner has illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by taking the view that the case falls outside the purview of Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, as the appellant has perfected title by uninterrupted possession of the lands. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the title by adverse possession with reference to the ownership of the land would accrue, if at all, against the government on the completion of 30 years uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of land by the respondents and not by 12 years. Learned counsel contended that by the grant no ownership rights had been conferred on the grantee. The ownership and title as to the land, as the government continued to be owner vested in the government even after the grant was made. Learned counsel contended that only right of user and possession for the purpose of cultivation had been granted in favour of the petitioner or petitioner's father and in this connection reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunkara Rajyalakshmi v State of Karnataka, Sri Sivappa also made a reference to the decision of this court as well viz. , case of Basappa v Special Deputy Commissioner, chitradurga district and others. , case of Basappa v Special Deputy Commissioner, chitradurga district and others. Learned counsel contended that period of 30 years is materially needed for claiming title by adverse possession and therefore the appellate authority should have considered the appeal on merits and recorded the finding of issues involved. On behalf of the respondents Sri n. Devadas, contended that the case of sunkara rajyalakshmi, supra, has been explained subsequently by the Supreme Court in the case of K. T. Huchegowda v Deputy Commissioner and others , Sri devadas relying on the position in k. t. huchegowda's case, supra, contended that 30 years period of limitation may apply to cases where the land had been allowed by way of grant and title remains with the state government then no doubt the person claiming title by adverse possession has to prove on his continuous adverse possession of 30 years before the enforcement of ACT 20 of 1979, whether by granting, grantee acquires absolute title or ownership of the land from the state government, twelve years period may be relevant for the purpose of claiming and establishing accrual of the title by adverse possession and in each case the nature of grant has to be determined by examining the grant deeds. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellate authority has taken the view that land was for upset price and therefore it was sold in favour of the present respondent and therefore the title and ownership had been transferred and once ownership had been transferred by the government in favour of the grantee then 12 years period of adverse possession would be sufficient and the appellate court was therefore justified in dismissing the appeal after having recorded this finding. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri devadas placed before me the electrostat copy of the grant. Counsel for the petitioner has also been shown the copy of the grant which he has not disputed. The opening portion of the grant reads as under:prima facie the land was granted for the purpose of cultivation and user of the land. Appellants no doubt admit that there was a bar mentioned as 10 years. Counsel for the petitioner has also been shown the copy of the grant which he has not disputed. The opening portion of the grant reads as under:prima facie the land was granted for the purpose of cultivation and user of the land. Appellants no doubt admit that there was a bar mentioned as 10 years. Learned counsels for the parties agree that no doubt transfer had been made within a period of 10 years from the date of grant, as such had been in violation of the terms of the grant as there was bar against transfer for 10 years from the date of grant. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, it was for the assistant commissioner to have firstly considered and decided the question if by grant the state had transferred the ownership in the land in favour of the grantee or it was a simple grant of occupancy rights for user of the land for the purpose indicated therein. The appellate authority had not applied its mind to this aspect of the matter. In view of the Supreme Court decision cited before me in case where by the granting of the land title i. e. , right of ownership in the land have been granted in favour of the grantee, then that may be a case where 12 years period of adverse possession might be taken to be sufficient to confer title by adverse possession on a claimant who claims title by adverse possession but where only occupancy right have been granted under the grant and not of ownership then to claim title by adverse possession against the state, which may take action under Section 5 of the ACT the alienee who has taken land under an invalid transfer has to prove and show his possession uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the land as owner under the invalid deed of transfer for 30 years or more before coming into force of the ACT 2 of 1979 (karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes prohibition of transfer of certain lands act ). In the case of k. t. huchegowda, supra, the case of sunkara rajyalakshmi, supra, has been considered and in addition thereto, the Supreme Court also made a reference to its decision in the case of Manchegowda and others v State of Karnataka and others , and thereafter their lordships in k. t. huchegowda's case, supra, observed as under:their lordships in para 10 have further observed:in the appellate court decision, it does not appear that all the facts have been taken into and no effort is made to examine the documents of grant or saguvali chit, to ascertain the nature of the rights that were conferred on the present petitioner or his ancestor. It had to examine this question whether ownership rights were conferred or only occupancy rights. If occupancy rights had only been conferred subject to certain riders and restrictions, then in that case it could be said that ownership continued to be remained vested in the state government. No doubt without expressing any opinion on that point or on the point and occupancy rights under the mysore revenue code, read along with provisions of Karnataka scheduled castes, scheduled tribes (prohibition of certain lands) act, I think, it would be proper on my part to quash the Order passed by the appellate authority, as the appellate authority has failed to examine the material question as has been mentioned before opining whether 12 years period has to be applied or 30 years period. The writ petition is thus partly allowed. The writ of certiorari is issued. The Order of appellate authority dated 24-6-1996, is hereby quashed and the appeal be restored. Parties may be heard on the matter and if necessary evidence may be taken. Let the above direction be issued to the deputy commissioner, mandya to restore the appeal for a fresh decision. It is also open to appellate authority to call for finding from the assistant commissioner as well and thereafter the appeal may be-decided afresh according to law. All the pleas intended by parties hearing to be raised, may be raised at the time of hearing by the parties. Thus writ petition is allowed in part. --- *** --- .