( 1 ) HEARD. ( 2 ) ON 30-9-1948 the petitioner was granted 2 acres 10 guntas of land in Sy. No. 96/3 of Kanur village in Shikaripur Taluk of Shimoga District initially on temporary lease then followed by permanent grant made on 14-3-1956. He is a member of the Valmiki Community. He sold the said land on 24-5-1966 under a registered sale deed to one Gangri Ranganna, who in turn, sold the same to respondent 3 on 26-2-1973. ( 3 ) ON an application made by the petitioner, the order dated 5-1-1993 was passed by the assistant Commissioner holding that the said alienation dated 25-4-1966 made by the grantee in favour of Gangri Ranganna as also its subsequent alienation by the latter to respondent 3 made on 26-2-1973 was null and void on the ground that the land was alienated by the grantee in- violation of the non-alienation condition. The said order of Assistant Commissioner was challenged in appeal by respondent 3 before the Deputy Commissioner who passed his impugned order dated 8-9-1997, produced as Annexure-B, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner but directing resumption of the land to the Government instead of its restoration to the grantee. The grantee's prayer to restore the land to him was rejected by him on the ground that as on the date of grant. e. , on 14-3-1956, the Valmiki Community did not belong to Scheduled Caste and that it was only in the year 1991 this community was included as the Scheduled Caste. ( 4 ) MR. C. H. Jadhav, learned Counsel for petitioner, was justified in his submission that subsequent inclusion of Valmiki Community in the year 1991 in the list of Scheduled Caste ensures to the benefit of the grantee inasmuch as this relates back to the date of grant of the land as has been ruled by this Court in its decisions in B. Sanjeevaiah v State of Karnataka, and madaiah v Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram and Others. It is an undisputed fact that by an order promulgated by the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 342 of the Constitution of India styled as "the Constitution (S. T.) Order II, Amendment act, 1991" the Valmiki Community was included at Entry No. 38 of Part 6, Karnataka in the schedule of the Constitution (S. T.) Order, 1950. In the aforesaid decisions, it is held that since the communities so included by subsequent promulgation of the orders by President of India in exercise of the powers conferred on him by clause (1) of Article 342, the land granted to any persons belonging to the community prior to such inclusion of their caste in the list of S. C. or s. T. , will have to be treated as the granted land' within the meaning of the term defined by section 3 (b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act', for short ). Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has erred in law holding contrary to this proposition. As such the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, the permanent grant of land having been made on 14-3-1956, the relevant rule envisaging ban on its sale for a particular period is sub-rule (6) of Rule 43 of the Mysore Land revenue Rules, brought into force by Notification No. R5536-56-LR-266-55-8, dated 6th July, 1955. Provisions of this rule contemplate that if the grant of the land was free of cost then the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant or if the grant was made for an upset price or for a reduced upset price, then the period of alienation will be 10 years in which event the sale in this case would be beyond the period of non-alienation and therefore valid. Both the authorities below have failed to record their distinct finding on the basis of dependable and admissible relevant material whether the land was granted to the grantee free of cost or for an upset price or reduced upset price. In the absence of Assistant Commissioner's finding on this material point his order does not sustain in law. For this purpose the matter requires to be remitted to him for fresh enquiry and disposal. In the absence of Assistant Commissioner's finding on this material point his order does not sustain in law. For this purpose the matter requires to be remitted to him for fresh enquiry and disposal. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of Deputy commissioner dated 8-9-1997 at Annexure-B and also the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 5-1-1993 at Annexure-A are both quashed. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to hold fresh enquiry, record, his finding on the point whether the land in question was granted to the petitioner-grantee free of cost or for upset price or reduced upset price and then to dispose of the matter by his fresh order in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties.