H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader, Smt. Bharathi nagesh. ( 2 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29-3-1995, passed in case No. Ptch 12 of 1993-94, by the assistant commissioner, in proceedings under Section 5 of the act 2 of 1979, that is scheduled castes/scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1979, whereby the concerned authority declared sale deed dated 4-9-1965, to be null and void under Section 4 (1) and directed the resumption of the land and its restoration in favour of respondent 3. The petitioner has further challenged the order of the appellate authority dated 9-7-1996, passed in appeal No. Ptch 6 of 1995-96, whereby the deputy commissioner has affirmed the order of the assistant commissioner. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case in nut shell are that 2 acres of land (survey No. 156, new No. 360) situated in village badigadi, hariharpura hobli, koppa tq. , had been granted in favour of the father-in-law of the 4th respondent vide. , grant dated 16-12-1958 and the saguvali-chit had been issued on 16-12-1958 and the grantee was put in possession of the land. The grantee vide. , sale deeds dated 4/5-9-1965, transferred the land in favour of the petitioner. The proceedings under Section 5 of act 2 of 1979, had been initiated and after enquiry the assistant commissioner allowed the application by his order dated 29-3-1995, directing the resumption of the land-subject matter of sale deed dated 4-9-1965 and its restoration to the legal representatives of the original grantee. The petitioner-alienee felt aggrieved from the order dated 29-3-1995, preferred appeal before the deputy commissioner and the deputy commissioner dismissed the appeal and rejected the contentions made by the present petitioner-appellant and affirmed the finding and order of the assistant commissioner. ( 4 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the orders impugned, the petitioner has come up before this court. On notice being issued, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. In paragraph-2 of the counter affidavit, respondents have very clearly averred that the land bearing survey No. 360 (old No. 156) measuring 2 acres, situated at bandigadi, koppa taluk, was granted free of cost to rangaiah, father-in-law of respondent 4. The saguvali-chit was issued on 16-12-1958. In paragraph-2 of the counter affidavit, respondents have very clearly averred that the land bearing survey No. 360 (old No. 156) measuring 2 acres, situated at bandigadi, koppa taluk, was granted free of cost to rangaiah, father-in-law of respondent 4. The saguvali-chit was issued on 16-12-1958. Petitioner purchased the said land from the original grantee on 5-9-1965. Respondents have averred that Rule 43 (6) (a) (i) framed under the Mysore land revenue code is applicable and according to this Rule, non-alienation period is 15 years and that the sale had taken place within the operative period of non-alienation clause and it was in contravention of the conditions of the grant and as such the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner, rightly decided the case, by allowing the application under Section 5 and by directing the restoration of the land to the legal representatives of the grantee. ( 5 ) IT has also been pleaded in the counter affidavit, that the assistant commissioner is entitled to take suo motu proceedings as well and there is no limitation for exercising suo motu powers and reference has been made to Section 11 of the act as well in the affidavit and on that basis it has been asserted that article 137 of the Limitation Act will not apply. ( 6 ) I have heard petitioner's counsel Sri h. t. narendra prasad, as well as Smt. Shantakumari, learned government pleader for the respondents 1 to 3. Nobody appears on" behalf of respondent 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no finding has been recorded about the nature of the grant. He further contended that as such the order is bad in law. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession and therefore proceedings under Section 4 were not maintainable. As regard the first contention, I have got the order of the assistant commissioner and it reveals that the assistant commissioner has after consideration of the material, in his order has observed that the grant was a free grant and the grantee was a person belonging to scheduled caste community. As regard the first contention, I have got the order of the assistant commissioner and it reveals that the assistant commissioner has after consideration of the material, in his order has observed that the grant was a free grant and the grantee was a person belonging to scheduled caste community. So far as the non-alienation condition is concerned, Rule 43 (6) of the rules as it operated after the amendment of the rules in January 1958, provided that the grant of land made under Rule, either under 43-a or under Rule 43 (h), clause (a) of the act shall be subject to the condition that where the grant is a free grant, the granted land shall not be alienated for 15 years, from the date of grant and where there is grant for reduced upset price, the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of 10 years from the date of grant. ( 7 ) IN this case the grant was a free grant. Therefore, bar against alienation was operative for a period of 15 years from the date of grant, but the transfer in this case has been made within almost 7 to 8 years from the date of grant. As such, the alienation made in favour of the petitioner has been in flagrant violation of the non-alienation clause. Section 4 of the act declares that all alienations of the granted land, made by the grantee in contravention of the terms of the grant, or law providing for such grant, shall be null and void and they are not to be deemed to have conveyed any title at any time. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, the alienation no doubt exhibited by sale deed dated 4/5-9-1965, was null and void. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the transferee had perfected title by adverse possession. I am unable to accept this contention. Here by the grant, only a right to enjoy the land and to cultivate it had been granted and no ownership right in the land had been granted by the government in favour of the grantee. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the transferee had perfected title by adverse possession. I am unable to accept this contention. Here by the grant, only a right to enjoy the land and to cultivate it had been granted and no ownership right in the land had been granted by the government in favour of the grantee. As such, in order to claim title by adverse possession, against the owner of the land, petitioner had to allege and prove against the government i. e. , owner of land, hostile and adverse 30 years possession over the granted land, immediately before the enforcement of act 2 of 1979. Petitioner's case here is that he has entered into possession of the land by virtue of the sale transaction by sale deed executed in his favour by the grantee on 4-9-1965. Petitioner prima facie cannot claim title by adverse possession against the government, which is the owner of the land. It is not a case where the government has granted ownership rights in favour of the grantee. Had it been an established case that government had granted ownership rights in favour of the grantee and did not retain ownership with itself, there would have been some force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel, on the basis of long standing possession. But here only grant has been made permitting him to make use of the land in occupancy rights and nothing more. So ownership had been retained by the government and once ownership has been retained and petitioner has not proved his 30 years adverse or hostile possession against government, the petitioner cannot be said to have perfected his title by adverse possession. Apart from that accrual of any such thing as occupancy rights by adverse possession has not been recognised under the Mysore land revenue code, 1888. As per Section 70 of 1888 code, a valid transfer of occupancy rights by agreement is recognised which is not in breach of any of the conditions of grant or of the law or rules relating to grant. In those cases Section 70 of the Mysore land revenue code i. e. , act of 1888 no doubt requires, that it is open to the deputy commissioner to accept the agreement between the grantee and the alienee. In those cases Section 70 of the Mysore land revenue code i. e. , act of 1888 no doubt requires, that it is open to the deputy commissioner to accept the agreement between the grantee and the alienee. But the transfer being invalid, the petitioner cannot claim accrual of occupancy rights by 12 years possession, as law does not recognise accrual of any such right. Learned counsel contended that article 137 of the Limitation Act may be applied. I am unable to accept this contention. Section 11 of the act 2 of 1979, by itself does not provide any limitation over right of land. Section 11 provides that the provision of this act shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith, contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or contract or any decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, in my opinion as Section 11 has got the overriding effect over other laws, it cannot be said that the proceedings were barred by limitation. ( 10 ) THUS considered in my opinion, there is no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( 11 ) LEARNED government pleader, Smt. Bharathi nagesh is permitted to file her memo of appearance. --- *** --- .