H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged and has sought for grant of a writ of certiorari or any other suitable Order or direction as the court may deem fit to quash the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 namely, assistant commissioner, mandya and the deputy commissioner, mandya district, mandya, in case No. Stl. 5/89-90, dated 26-2-1991 and Order in appeal ptcl 44 (a)/90-91, dated 3-12-1993. Copies of orders have been annexed as annexures-a and b respectively to the writ petition. Petitioner has further prayed that this court should hold this alienation made in favour of the petitioner of survey No. 242 measuring 1 acre of manigere village, maddur taluk. Mandya district, are not void under the provisions of the ACT and for grant of other reliefs. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in nut-shell are that according to the petitioner, who claims himself to be the purchaser of 2 acres of land of survey No. 242, old survey No. 153 of the village, is in possession of the said land and had purchased the said land by the sale deed dated 12-6-1958 for valuable consideration and the petitioner along with his brother was put in possession of the land. The petitioner has further alleged that under sale deed birth his brother and himself were put in possession of the land and thereafter there was a family partition amongst the brethren and one acre of that property had fallen to the share of this brother and the other had gone to the other brother and thus vide the sale deed dated 12-6-1958, two acres of land was purchased. An application under Section 5 was made by the first respondent to the assistant commissioner, under Section 5 of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978, claiming alienation made in favour of petitioner and his brother to be void under the provisions of the ACT 2 of 1979 and sought restoration of the land transferred under the sale deed meaning thereby two acres of land that was transferred under the sale deed dated 12-6- 1958. No doubt in the petition it has been represented and stated that respondent 1 claimed restoration of one acre of land. This is a mistake. Really restoration of the land under the sale deed dated 12-6-1958 was claimed. No doubt in the petition it has been represented and stated that respondent 1 claimed restoration of one acre of land. This is a mistake. Really restoration of the land under the sale deed dated 12-6-1958 was claimed. That is the land which the two brethren had equally partitioned later on. The petitioner has stated that the petitioner's brother had filed objections before the 2nd respondent disputing the claim of the 1st respondent and it is stated that the petitioner has contended in his objection that alienation was not in contravention of the ACT and there was no prohibition to transfer of the said land. The copy of the objection filed by the two brethren has not been annexed to the writ petition. Anyway in the writ petition no doubt it has been contended that grant was not free grant but it was for up-set price and when the grant was for an upset price there could be no prohibition of alienation since such grant amounts to absolute alienation in favour of the grantee. Further by means of long enjoyment of the land in its own rights it is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has perfected title by adverse possession and such title cannot be defeated under the provisions of the act. It is nowhere stated in the course of the writ petition that this was the case pleaded by the objector-petitioner before the assista. it commissioner. But so far as this part of the allegation is concerned, there is no such allegation that this was also pleaded before the authority that land was not a free grant nor it is stated in the petition on oath that petitioner had also pleaded the right or accrual of title by adverse possession. It appears to be subsequent development and product of ingenuity of the learned counsel appearing before the high court, the petitioner has not filed the copy of the objections. So it appears, if the plea would have been taken he would have filed the objections. Anyway, the assistant commissioner allowed the application vide Order dated 26-2-1991 copy of which is Annexure-A to the writ petition. So it appears, if the plea would have been taken he would have filed the objections. Anyway, the assistant commissioner allowed the application vide Order dated 26-2-1991 copy of which is Annexure-A to the writ petition. After having held the alienation to be void and on the ground as alleged in the petition that land was granted, by the assistant commissioner by Order dated 9-10-1952 and saguvali chit was issued on 29-11-1952 and the land was transferred in breach of the non-alienation clause. Against the Order of the assistant, commissioner, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the deputy commissioner. The deputy commissioner dismissed the appeal No. 44 (a) of 1990-91. It may be mentioned here that petitioners' brother had filed appeal No. 44 of 1990-91. The deputy commissioner by one common Order disposed of both the appeals and dismissed the appeals vide Order dated 3-12-1993 and affirmed the Order passed by the assistant commissioner dated 26-2-1991. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri shivappa for a good length and Sri shivaprasad, learned counsel for respondent 1 and the learned government pleader Smt. Shanthakumari for respondents 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued and contended that the petitioner had perfected rights by adverse possession and the authorities have failed to notice that petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land ever since the date of purchase i. e. , 12-6-1958 and continuously in his own right adverse to the interest of the first respodent and for enjoyment of more than the statutory period and perfected his title by adverse possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to the decision in K. T. Huchegowda v Deputy Commissioner and others. He has also made reference to other decisions. To the question put to the counsel whether this plea was raised in the objections filed before the authorities, the learned counsel has hypothetically stated that it has been stated. But, when questioned where are the objections he was unable to produce the copy of the objections. The learned counsel contended that this was his main plea and the case be remanded for consideration of this plea. The learned counsel contended that he may be permitted to amend the pleadings by inserting that plea, if not already raised. But, when questioned where are the objections he was unable to produce the copy of the objections. The learned counsel contended that this was his main plea and the case be remanded for consideration of this plea. The learned counsel contended that he may be permitted to amend the pleadings by inserting that plea, if not already raised. This was sought to be urged when I had been dictating judgment and not in the course of arguments. The learned counsel also attempted to contend that there is no finding now about the nature of the grant. On behalf of the respondents Sri shivaprasad hotly contested the contention made by the learned counsel. Sri shivaprasad contended that from the same Order of the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner which have been impugned in Lingegowda v State of Karnataka and others , had been filed and that writ petition has been dismissed by the single judge of this court by the Order dated 21st december. 1993. Against the Order of the learned judge dated 21-12-1993, lingegowda, his brother had filed an writ appeal. The learned counsel contended that the said writ appeal has also been dismissed by the division bench and the orders impugned in the writ petition have been maintained by this court by the learned single judge, as well as by the division bench. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that there was one case before the assistant commissioner, because the application of the petitioner was for declaring the sale deed of 12-6-1958 to be void vide application made by the 3rd respondent. The case was decided by one Order and that was one case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that objections were filed. It has nowhere been shown that there were two objections filed against the application. Even if two objections have been filed contesting the claim of the respondents, it amounted to nothing but two written statements in one case. The case was decided by one Order and that was one case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that objections were filed. It has nowhere been shown that there were two objections filed against the application. Even if two objections have been filed contesting the claim of the respondents, it amounted to nothing but two written statements in one case. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the writ petition filed by lingegowda and the dismissal of the appeal, this writ petition should be dismissed and in that case it had been found that before the assistant commissioner no such plea as of accrual of title by adverse possession had been taken and this new plea should not be allowed by this court as the same has been rejected by the learned single judge as well as the division bench. Learned counsel further contended that until it is shown that such a plea was taken by the petitioner before the assistant commissioner, and it was not considered, this court cannot go into the question of adverse possession. Admittedly, the grant is in favour of the depressed class person. It was not a sale and transfer of ownership. If it would have been a case of sale and the title had been conferred that would have been a different matter. No such plea had been raised, that the grant was of ownership right and not of only occupancy rights. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that when it was for the transferee to raise all such objections specifically involved and raise questions of fact to be determined and if the party has not raised any objections before the assistant commissioner there is no question of entertaining this plea at this stage nor there is any question of recording any finding with regard to the fact that the grantee was a depressed class person. If a person wants to say that the grant was made on paying full market fee, it should have been pleaded specifically in the pleadings and further ought to have filed copy of the objections. He contended that there is no illegality in the orders annexures-a and b passed by respondents 2 and 3. The same contentions were raised by the learned High Court government pleader. He contended that there is no illegality in the orders annexures-a and b passed by respondents 2 and 3. The same contentions were raised by the learned High Court government pleader. ( 4 ) I have applied my mind to all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the plea of accrual of title by adverse possession the division bench has also observed in its Order after having heard Mr. Shivappa, as well who is appearing before me in this writ petition:in k. t. huchegowda's case, supra, on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to his request for remanding the matter, lays down this very principle. The Supreme Court in huchegowda's case, supra, in paragraph 11 has observed and ordered accordingly after laying down the law regarding the question of 12 years or 30 years application, when 30 years will be applied and when 12 years will be applied and has been laid down as under:i emphasise on the words used by their lordships of the Supreme Court 'taking into consideration as to whether the appellant had raised this question at the earliest opportunity i. e. , before the assistant commissioner and what material had been produced by the appellant before the assistant commissioner'. Their lordships wanted to point out that before examining that question it has to be taken into consideration whether petitioner had raised such a plea before the assistant commissioner or not. From this it conies out that, if it is not raised before the assistant commissioner, it cannot be considered and examined. The intention was that if the plea had been raised it may be considered. If it had not been raised, it need not be considered. This is the way I read the observation of their lordships. From this decision it appears that the party had to raise the plea or the petitioner had to raise the plea at the earliest opportunity before the assistant commissioner. But if the party himself has not raised any plea it should not be allowed at a later stage to raise that plea. ( 5 ) THE observation of the Supreme Court in the case of papaiah, supra, lays down such a principle. But if the party himself has not raised any plea it should not be allowed at a later stage to raise that plea. ( 5 ) THE observation of the Supreme Court in the case of papaiah, supra, lays down such a principle. The observations in papaiah's case, supra, have been quoted above, it will not be a repeating, as I want to lay emphasis on the said portion also. The relevant observation which 1 want to quote is as follows:this indicates that their lordships laid great emphasis on the well-settled doctrine of pleading and proof. If a plea had not been raised, then even if there is any evidence it cannot be considered. With respect to the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the court that this plea of adverse possession was raised at the earliest stage before the assistant commissioner. The copy of objections has not been filed. It is one of the well-settled principles of law that if a document relates to a party who himself is in possession and he does not file, adverse presumption must be drawn. The objections to application under Section 5 had been filed by the present petitioner before the assistant commissioner. In the ordinary course of things the petitioner must be having the copy of the objections. He could have and should have annexed the copy of the objections to the writ petition. That objection was not placed before this court without rhyme or reason. When such copy has not been filed, this court has to assume that no such plea was raised. Hence, in my considered view, this plea had not been raised at the earliest stage. If the same is not filed at the earliest stage the same cannot be considered. The learned counsel prayed that he may be allowed to amend the objections and a direction may be issued to the authority to permit the petitioner to raise this plea. This is too late in the day to accept such request particularly when one writ petition and the bench appeal from the same Order passed by the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner disposing of the case and disposing of the two appeals filed from one common judgment by a common judgment had been dismissed by this court and the writ appeal from it had also been dismissed. As such, a request is refused. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel further contended relying on Pedda Reddy v State of Karnataka and others, that his case is that the price he paid was full price, the authority has not recorded any finding as to whether the grant was on full price, or upset price. Objections are not before me. As objections are not there, the same principle applies. But there is no dispute, even failure to record any specific finding may not be very material, because the admitted position seems to be that the grantee belonged to depressed class i. e. , scheduled castes who made the application and admitted position would be taken to be that the grant was on reduced upset price or free grant. In 1952 i. e. , 1953, rule 43 (8) as it then existed provided that the land granted to persons belonging to depressed class was non-alienable for all times to come. There was no question of specific period for which non-alienation clause was applicable. Therefore in my opinion it was rightly held that the transfer was in violation of that condition. If there was some irregularity that will not be such an irregularity and it cannot be said that on that basis this court is bound to interfere particularly in the circumstances of the present case when that Order had already been affirmed by this court in writ petition and appeal filed by the brother of the petitioner who divided the land after transfer vide sale deed dated 12-6-1958. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary. Even if there is some illegality or irregularity is found in the Order, but if Order appears to be just, the court is not bound to interfere with every Order which is said to be illegal or irregular. In the present case Justice appears to have been done to the parties and particularly when the earlier writ petition from same Order has been dismissed and the division bench has dismissed the appeal, it is not a fit case for this court to interfere or quash those orders in this writ petition which has been filed by the other brother. Both brothers could have filed one petition, or if the two petitions would have been listed together then at that time this petition would have had the same fate as writ petition No. 42098 of 1993 had. Both brothers could have filed one petition, or if the two petitions would have been listed together then at that time this petition would have had the same fate as writ petition No. 42098 of 1993 had. In view of the above writ petition thus fails and hereby dismissed as being without merits, with costs assessed at Rs. 1,600/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent. --- *** --- .