MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the argument of learned Counsel on both sides. ( 2 ) CERTAIN undisputed facts are that an extent of 3 acres of agricultural land in old Sy. No. 22 (New Survey No. 104) of Doddaboki Kere village, Tarikere Taluk of Chickmagalur District belonging to Government was granted free of cost to the late father of respondent 4- chowdaiah on 22-12-1954 and the Saguvelli chit issued on 10-1-1955 with respect thereto was issued to him incorporating the condition that the granted land shall not be alienated by him for a period of 10 years. It is not in dispute that the grantee was a member of Scheduled Caste. Out of the said 3 acres of land, 2 acres 24 guntas thereof was sold by the grantee to the petitioner on 5-4-1971 under a registered sale deed. Since then, the latter is in possession and enjoyment thereof. ( 3 ) ON coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short), respondent 4 made an application to respondent 3 seeking resumption of the said land sold to petitioner alleging that the same had been alienated by his father to the latter within the prohibited period. On enquiry the Assistant Commissioner passed the order at annexure-D dated, 19-11-1983 allowing respondent 4's application and directing petitioner's eviction from the land for the purpose of its restoration to respondent 4 holding its sale in petitioner's favour made by the grantee on 5-4-1971 was null and void since it was made within the prohibited period. The said order at Annexure-D of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged in appeal by the petitioner before respondent 2-Deputy Commissioner who dismissed the appeal by his order at Annexure-E dated 27-3-1985. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that in respect of the said land granted to the grantee on 22-12-1954 the relevant rule imposing ban on its transfer for a specified period was sub-rule (8) of Rule 43 of the Rules framed by the government of Mysore under the Mysore Land Revenue Code in exercise of power under Section 233 of the Code as amended by the Government of Mysore by its Notification No. R. 7594-604-L. R. 266-53-2, dated 4th August, 1953. It reads:"43 (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . It reads:"43 (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) the grant of lands under sub-rules (1) and (5) to belonging to depressed classes for an upset price or reduced upset price and to poor persons not owning any land shall be subject to the condition that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of 20 years from the date of grant and the grantees shall also execute mutchalikas in the form prescribed by Government; provided that such land may be accepted as security for loans obtained from government or from a Co-operative Society for the purpose of improving the land. Alienation made contrary to this rule shall result in summary resumption of the land so granted and such land shall vest in Government free of all encumbrances and neither the grantee nor the alienee shall be eligible for any compensation". Sub-rule (1) of Rule 43 envisages the persons who ate eligible for the grant of land. Its material portion is extracted below:"43 (1) (A) All Lands under the control of the Revenue Department shall ordinarily be granted at an upset price to a person (i) Who under clause (b) is eligible for the grant to the extent to which he is eligible; or (ii) Who is a bona fide agriculturist or who bona fide intends to cultivate the lands himself;" ( 5 ) THE contention of Mr. Lingappa, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was that since the land in question was granted to the grantee free of cost and the grantee admittedly being a member belonging to Scheduled Caste the provision under Rule 43 (8) imposing ban on the transfer of granted land is not applicable. Elaborating his argument he submitted that for applicability of this provision in respect of the land granted to a member belonging to Scheduled Caste i. e. , depressed class, the grant made must be for either upset price or reduced upset price. Since the grant in this case is admittedly made free of cost, he submitted that it is outside the purview of Rule 43 (8 ). Since the grant in this case is admittedly made free of cost, he submitted that it is outside the purview of Rule 43 (8 ). Learned Counsel for respondent 4, Bindu Kumar, per contra, submitted that a close reading of Rule 43 (8) brings clearly to the fore that the land granted free of cost also squarely falls within the sweep of this provision. Substantiating his contention he submitted that Rule 43 (8) also covers the case of and is made plainly applicable to the grant of land to a poor person not owning any land, such a person whether grant to him was free of cost or for an upset price or reduced upset price whatever. If it is so in respect of a land granted to a poor person, whether or not he belongs to depressed class, S. C. or S. T. , then by necessary implication it follows that the land granted free of cost to a member belonging to Scheduled Caste also comes within the ambit of Rule 43 (8 ). ( 6 ) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 argued supporting Mr. Bindu Kumar. ( 7 ) ON a careful consideration of the rival contentions put forward by both sides, I find sufficient legal force in the contention of Mr. Bindu Kumar for respondent 4. Evidently, when the bar on sale contemplated in Rule 43 (8) is made applicable to the land granted for an upset price or reduced upset price to a member belonging to a depressed class it then by necessary implication follows that the land granted free of cost to such person also falls within the sweep of Rule 43 (8 ). The reason is too obvious to be stated. The legal embargo in Rule 43 (8) is created to protect the welfare of the poor and backward class of the society including members of the depressed classes. When in respect of a land granted to a member of depressed class on payment of reduced price or upset price, the ban prohibiting transfer thereof for a specified period envisaged in Rule 43 (8) is attracted, it strongly militates against reason and prudence to hold that the same would not be applicable if the grant was made to such a grantee free of cost. Any such inference would offend the policy of the land grant rules providing for grant of Government land to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe or who are landless poor persons. Therefore, I find the contention of Mr. Lingappa unacceptable. In that view of the legal position of Rule 43 (8), and the land in question having been purchased by the petitioner within the prohibited period of 20 years from the grantee belonging to Scheduled caste, the sale in his favour is rightly declared null and void by the assistant Commissioner under the impugned order, and the Deputy commissioner has justifiably confirmed the same. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. It is submitted by Mr. Lingappa that petitioner has grown many trees in the alienated land after investing huge amounts. Respondent 3-Assistant Commissioner shall inspect the land and draw up a spot panchanama recording therein the clear description of the said trees and of the structure existing, therein, if any, before the possession of the land is delivered to respondent 4 pursuant to his impugned order. A copy of the said spot panchanama shall be furnished to the petitioner without delay. --- *** --- .