( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) THE land bearing Sy. No. 34/1992 of Kalenahalli, Shikaripura Taluk, Shimoga District, measuring one acre was the Government land. It was granted under darkhast to respondent 1 by the competent revenue authority and the Saguvali Chit i. e. , 'grant certificate' dated 30-4-1962 was issued to him. On 26-6-1967 the said land was sold by respondent 1 to the petitioner's father late Kami Giddappa, under a registered sale deed. Having so purchased it, the latter had been in actual possession and enjoyment thereof. After his death, his son petitioner-Vishwanath is stated to be in enjoyment, possession and cultivation of the said land. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT 1-Muniyappa is a member of Scheduled Caste which fact is not in dispute. Somewhere in 1993 he made an application to respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner seeking restoration of the said land alleging that the same had been purchased by petitioner's father in contravention of the non-alienation condition of the grant which prohibited its transfer for 15 years from 1962-63. The formal enquiry was held by respondent 2 under Section 5 of the karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the 'act' for short ). After enquiry an order at Annexure-B dated 28-2-1994 was passed by him against petitioner directing him to surrender the land to respondent 1 since it was purchased in breach of the said condition which was incorporated in Annexure-A grant certificate in accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 framed by the Government of Mysore (Karnataka) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 233 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888. That order of the assistant Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before respondent 3-Deputy commissioner in SC/st 32:95-96 who dismissed the same by his order dated 23-10-1997, produced as Annexure-C. Hence this writ petition challenging the aforesaid impugned orders of respondents 2 and 3. That order of the assistant Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before respondent 3-Deputy commissioner in SC/st 32:95-96 who dismissed the same by his order dated 23-10-1997, produced as Annexure-C. Hence this writ petition challenging the aforesaid impugned orders of respondents 2 and 3. ( 4 ) AS indicated above the material facts that respondent 1 is a member of the Scheduled Caste and the said land was granted to him vide Annexure-A Grant Certificate dated 30-2-1962 with the condition prohibiting its transfer for a period of 15 years from 1962-63, and that the said land had been sold by respondent 1 to the petitioner's father by a registered sale deed dated 26-6-1967 are the undisputed facts. Apparently the said alienation has taken place within a period of 15 years from the date of Grant Certificate i. e. , 30-4-1962 in contravention of non-alienation condition incorporated therein. ( 5 ) THE contention of Sri S. V. Prakash, learned Counsel for petitioner was that the contents of annexure-A indicate that the land was sold to respondent 1 on payment of its market price and therefore sub-clause (4) of Rule 43-G is not attracted to the said alienation and the non-alienation condition in it is inoperative and unenforceable. ( 6 ) PER contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri Ashwin representing respondent 1, both argued otherwise in support of the impugned orders of the authorities below. Their contention was that the amount of Rs. 26. 10 ps. shown in Annexure-A as the price for the land is not in fact its price but it was the amount collected by the granting authority towards certain miscellaneous charges, the grant made to respondent 1 being free of cost. Elaborating this submission they relied on the non-alienation condition in Annexure-A and maintained that its incorporation therein makes it clear that the grant of the land was free of cost. They submitted that if the land was not really granted free of cost to respondent 1 there was no need for the granting authority to include the said non-alienation condition in Annexure-A. Reliance was sought to be placed by them on the decisions of this Court in (1) Basappa v Special deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District and Others, (2) Motyappa v Deputy Commissioner, shimoga and Another, (3) Thammanne Gowda v State of Karnataka and Others. Sri Prakash also relied on (1) Hanumanna v Machappa and Others, (2) Pedda Reddy v State of Karnataka and others and (3) G. N. Vema Reddy v State of Karnataka and Others. ( 7 ) IN order to find whether or not sub-clause (4) of Rule 43-G is attracted to the present alienation, it is essential to reproduce the same, which runs as under: "43-G. Grant of lands under the preceding rules shall be subject to the following conditions:- (4) Where the grant is made free of cost, or is made at a price which is less than the full market value, the grant shall be subject to the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land, after the grant: provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". An essential ingredient of sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G to attract its applicability is that the grant of land must he made free of cost or at a price which is less than its full market value. The material portion in Annexure-A Saguvali Chit in this regard is extracted below:- . . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . On a plain reading of this relevant portion of Annexure-A it becomes clear that the amount of rs. 26. 10 collected from respondent 1 was towards price of one acre of land granted to him, it being nobody's case that the land was put to public auction by the Government and the same was purchased by respondent 1" in any such auction so as to hold his acquisition of the land by this mode of alienation which is also indicated in Annexure-A. It was contended by learned government Advocate and learned Counsel for respondent 1 that the amount of Rs. 26. 10 shown in Annexure-A did not represent the price of the land but in fact it was the amount paid by respondent 1 towards certain miscellaneous charges. Therefore, they argued that the grant was free of cost which attract applicability of Rule 43-G (4 ). 26. 10 shown in Annexure-A did not represent the price of the land but in fact it was the amount paid by respondent 1 towards certain miscellaneous charges. Therefore, they argued that the grant was free of cost which attract applicability of Rule 43-G (4 ). As indicated above, the basis for this contention was the non-alienation condition contained in Annexure-A. I find this submission unacceptable as it is inconsistent with the mode of alienation to be found in Annexure-A. It is impermissible to introduce into Annexure-A such a fact on mere conjecture militating against the unambiguous contents thereof clearly indicating that the said amount of Rs. 26. 10 was the price of the said land. ( 8 ) ALTERNATIVELY, it was argued by Sri Ashwin, learned Counsel for respondent 1, that if the said amount of Rs. 26. 10 is to be taken as price of the land then the figure itself is an indication that the amount is far less than the full market value of the land granted to respondent 1 and in that case sub-rule (4) of Rule 45-F squarely applies to the alienation in question and therefore the authorities below were justified in passing the impugned orders. Sri Ashwin, sought to draw support for his submission from the observations of this Court in Basappa's case, supra, that if the amount shown in the Grant Certificate as price of the land is meagre, then the presumption is that, that amount is not the actual market value of land but it was collected towards miscellaneous charges, and as such, the condition that the grantee shall not alienate the land for the specified period remains operative. ( 9 ) PER contra, Sri Prakash, repelling the contention of Sri Ashwin, argued, the question whether the particular amount collected from the grantee by the granting authority for the land granted represented the full market value of the land or the price less than that of the market value is the question of fact that is required to be gone into by the Enquiry Authority (Assistant commissioner) in course of his enquiry and his definite finding on this point should be recorded by him before sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G is applied to the particular case of alienation of the granted land. In support of this contention he relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in pedda Reddy's case, supra. In construing sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G, this Court in the case of pedda Reddy, supra, held: "the legal position is that the Assistant Commissioner cannot declare the sale of the land granted under the provisions of the Rules (Mysore Land Revenue Rules) as void unless he records the following findings: (i) that the grant was made in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe; (ii) that the grant was either on upset price or a free grant or for a price less than upset price; and (iii) that the alienation had taken place within the period of prohibition prescribed under the rules". ( 10 ) IT is no doubt true that in the case on hand, respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner has given his clear finding that respondent 1-grantee is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and also that the alienation in question had taken place within the period of prohibition prescribed under the rules. These findings are not in dispute before me. But the Assistant Commissioner has failed to record his further finding on another material point whether the price of Rs. 26. 10 paid by respondent 1 for the grant of land represented its full market value or the price less than its market value. Sri Prakash, therefore, submitted that in the absence of finding of Assistant commissioner on this material point of sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G his impugned order is not sustainable in law. The learned Government Advocate and Sri Ashwin, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 1 both made an attempt to dislodge this contention of Sri Prakash submitting that this ground was not urged by the petitioner before both the authorities below and therefore he is precluded from agitating the same in this petition. Reliance was placed by them on a dictum of this Court made at para 6 of its judgment in Thammanne Gowda's case, supra. The petitioner therein was a purchaser of the land from the grantee who was a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. Reliance was placed by them on a dictum of this Court made at para 6 of its judgment in Thammanne Gowda's case, supra. The petitioner therein was a purchaser of the land from the grantee who was a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. For the first time he urged the ground in the writ petition which was filed challenging the legality of the eviction order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed in an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, that the grantee was not a member of the scheduled Caste. This Court observed that since the question whether the grantee was belonging to Scheduled Caste or not, was not disputed before the concerned authorities below or even before the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the same cannot be entertained for the first time in the writ appeal. This observation of the Court made in writ appeal in the case of Thammanne gowda is not relevant to the question in this writ petition that whether or not the amount of Rs. 26. 10 collected from respondent 1-grantee by the Granting Authority represented the full market value of the land. As stated earlier for applicability of sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G the grant of land made to the grantee must be found to have been made either free of cost or at the price which is less than the full prevailing market value of the land. It is not necessary for the opposing party before the Assistant Commissioner to specifically raise this objection for his consideration since it is the legal duty cast on him by Rule 43-G (4) to determine it irrespective of any such objection was raised by the contesting party or not. In that perspective and in the light of the ruling of the division Bench of this Court in Pedda Reddy's case, supra, to the effect that Assistant commissioner is bound to record his finding on the said question, the observation of the Single bench in Basappa's case, supra, holding that if the amount collected by the grantee is too low it has to be presumed that the same is levied and collected as a nominal sum and not the market value, will have to yield to the Division Bench ruling. Therefore the petition deserves to be allowed to this limited extent. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. Therefore the petition deserves to be allowed to this limited extent. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned orders of respondents 2 and 3 are set aside only for the purpose of decision by the Assistant Commissioner of the question whether the amount of Rs. 26. 10 collected from respondent 1-grantee for the granted land is towards its market value or not. The matter is remitted to respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner with a direction to hold fresh enquiry and record his distinct finding on the said question, before considering the question whether or not sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G of the Rules is attracted to the alienation of the land made by respondent 1 in favour of petitioners. It is, however, made clear that the findings of Assistant Commissioner recorded in his impugned order at Annexure-B that respondent 1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and that the said alienation had taken place within the non-alienation period of 15 years are left undisturbed and they are not permitted to be reagitated before the Assistant Commissioner by the petitioners.