ORDER Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard the Petitioner's Counsel Smt. Harini Shivanand. 2. This petition is directed against orders dated 6.5.1995 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Chikballapur in PTCL Case. 9/1993-94 which order has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in SC.ST Appeal. 7/94-95 by order dated 8.5.1998, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kolar. 2.1. The proceedings under Section 5 were initiated against the Petitioner, who was a purchaser claims possession of the granted land by virtue of transfer (the sale) under registered sale deed dated 5.8.1976, alleged to have been executed by the grantee. 2.2. The land in question measures 1 acre 20 guntas of Sy. No. 55/5 situate in Beedaganahalli Village, Chikballapur Taluk, Kolar District. The land had been granted in favour of the father of 3rd respondent, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste, on 21.7.1974. 3. There is no dispute that the grantee belonged to Scheduled Caste. The grant was made with the non-alienation clause to the effect that for 15 Years period from the date of grant, the land shall not be alienated. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner held that the alienation having been made in less than 2 years period from the date of grant, was itself in breach of prohibition clause, which prohibited alienation of the granted land for 15 Years. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended before this Court that the transferee also belonged to the Scheduled Castes Community. He contended that, as the grantee and transferee, both belonged to Scheduled Castes Community, so Sections 4 and 5 of Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979 did not apply. I am unable to accept this contention, neither Section 4, nor 5, nor 3(e) of the Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979 make any such exception or exemption in the matter of transfer by a Scheduled Caste grantee or Scheduled Tribe grantee in favour of another Scheduled Caste grantee. 5. Section 3(e) defines transfer. It reads as under: transfer' means a sale, gift or exchange or mortgage with or without possession, lease or any other transaction not being a partition among members of a family or a testamentary disposition and includes creation of a charge or an agreement to sell, exchange, mortgage or lease or enter into any other transaction. 6. It reads as under: transfer' means a sale, gift or exchange or mortgage with or without possession, lease or any other transaction not being a partition among members of a family or a testamentary disposition and includes creation of a charge or an agreement to sell, exchange, mortgage or lease or enter into any other transaction. 6. This definition of transfer does not provide or contain any provision to the effect that transfers made by a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe grantee in favour of any other person belonging to any Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall not be deemed to be a transfer for the purpose of Section 3 or for the purpose of the Act. So Section 3 does not create any exemption. Section 4 which declares transfer in contravention of the conditions of terms of grant or provisions of law relating to grant or in contravention of Sub-section 2 shall be null and void, which even includes/applies to the transfers made in pursuance of execution of any decree or award or order of any Court. This Section provides no such exception or exemption to the effect that, Section 4 shall not apply to transfer of a granted land made by a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe grantee in favour of any other Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person. Section 5 including Sub-section (3) thereof, also do not contain any such exception or exemption in favour of transferees belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is nowhere provided that no proceedings shall be taken against a transferee belonging to Scheduled Castes, who has purchased the land from the grantee. 7. The exception has not been provided, no doubt keeping in view the best interest of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes persons that they may not be exploited in any form by taking the benefit of any exemptions themselves, provided the legislature abstained from enacting any exemption in favour of exempting from Section 4 of the Act the transfer made by a Scheduled Caste grantee in favour of any other Scheduled Caste grantee. When there is no such exception contained or exemption provided by the law, Sections 4 and 5 will apply and have been rightly applied to the present case, as in the present case, grantee has transferred the land within a period of 2 years from the date of grant or transfer has been made within the period less than 3 years from the date of grant, as the date of grant is 21.7.1974 and the sale deed has been executed in favour of the Petitioner on 5.8.1976. In this view of the matter, in my opinion the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction in holding the transfer effected by sale deed dated 5.8.1976 to be null and void and thereafter in issuing the direction for restoration and resumption of land. 8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that Petitioner has perfected the right and title to the land by adverse possession, particularly at the time when proceedings were initiated. I am unable to accept this contention. Proceedings were initiated in the beginning of 1993. Petitioner has not perfected his title by adverse and hostile possession against the State which is the owner of the land. It has not been shown that the Petitioner has been in possession in an adverse manner and in hostility to the State for a period of 30 years. Here period of less than 30 years has passed. Further the Petitioners claim title or possession under the umbrella of the transfer deed executed by grantee in breach of prohibition. But his possession being under the cover of transfer deed from the grantee, nature of his possession against State could not be hostile, as the transferee entered at the most into the shoes of grantee and, if it would have perfected title, even then his possession would have been permissive. So in this case the contention of the Petitioner that he perfected title by adverse possession is also without force. Learned Counsel contended that as the grantee has transferred and, therefore there is no question of land being restored to him, as he has not committed breach of grant. So in this case the contention of the Petitioner that he perfected title by adverse possession is also without force. Learned Counsel contended that as the grantee has transferred and, therefore there is no question of land being restored to him, as he has not committed breach of grant. This contention in absence of mandatory direction under Section 5(1)(b) might have been of some force, but when the policy of law is, as indicated under Section 5(1)(b) that land has to be restored unless it is not practicable, the contention cannot be accepted against the terms of law. 9. Thus considered the petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.