GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed challenging the orders dated 27. 7. 1999 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in Revision No. PTCL: 100:98-99, Annexure-'f' and the Appellate order dated 25. 1. 2000 passed in Revision Appeal No, 46:98-99 as per Annexure 'g'. ( 2 ) THE petitioner purchased the lands to the extent of 2 acres insy. No. 25/1a in terms of a Sale Deed dated 14. 5. 1992 from respondent No. 3 Smt. Kamakshamma. The State Government alloted the land to Smt. Kamakshamma on 20. 12. 1972 as per Saguvali Chit. The Government at the time of granting the land to the said kamakshamma imposed a condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. After sale, she filed a petition before respondent No. 2 for cancelling the Sale Deed on the ground that she belongs to Schedule Caste and she is entitled for restoration of the land in question. The Assistant Commissioner, after hearing has allowed the petition by holding that there is violation of provision of Section 4 (2) of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (for short the Act) in hi? order. An unsuccessful appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner. These two orders are challenged before me. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri Vigneshwar S. Sastry, learned Counselappearing for the petitioner and the Government Advocate in the case on hand for final disposal. ( 4 ) MR. Sastry, learned Counsel, argued that the lands were soldafter 15 years to respondent No. 3 and she sold the lands in the year 1992 after a period of 15 years to the petitioner and therefore there is no violation of the condition of the Government Order. He further argues that Section 4 is not applicable to the facts of this case. He relies on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in SRI manchegowda ETC. , vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in support of his case. The learned Government Pleader supports the order. He further argues that Section 4 is not applicable to the facts of this case. He relies on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in SRI manchegowda ETC. , vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in support of his case. The learned Government Pleader supports the order. After hearing the learned Counsel on either side, I pass the following order: ( 5 ) THE Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 is an act to provide for prohibition of transfer of certain lands granted by Government to persons belonging to SC and ST in the State. Section 4 of the Act is as under :"notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed nor be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. (2} No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority. " ( 6 ) SECTION 4 (2) provides for a prohibition of transfer or requisitionby way of transfer of any granted lands without the permission of the Government after the commencement of the Act. In the case on hand, admittedly, the sale has taken place in the year 1992, that is after the commencement of the Act and no previous permission has been obtained by the parties. In these circumstances, it is clear to me that there is a clear violation of Section 4 (2) of the Act in the case on hand. Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy commissioner, after noticing the facts of the case, have ruled against the petitioner in the light of Section 4 (2) of the Act. Both the orders cannot said to suffer from any errors of law as contended by the counsel. Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy commissioner, after noticing the facts of the case, have ruled against the petitioner in the light of Section 4 (2) of the Act. Both the orders cannot said to suffer from any errors of law as contended by the counsel. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the reasoned orders of both the authorities. ( 7 ) THE Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri MANCHEGOWDAetc. , vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (supra) is a case in which the constituability of Sections 4 and 5 were challenged. The supreme Court noticed the impact of Sections 4 and 5 with regard to the granted lands. In Para 12, the Supreme Court has ruled:"in pursuance of this policy, the Legislature is undoubtedly competent to pass an enactment providing that transfers of such granted lands will be void and not merely voidable for property safeguarding and protecting the interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for whose benefit only these lands had been granted. Even in the absence of any such statutory provisions, the transfer of granted lands in contravention of the terms of the grant or in breach of any law, rule or regulation covering such grant will clearly be voidable and the resumption of such granted lands after avoiding the voidable transfers in accordance with law will be permitted. Avoidance of such voidable transfers and resumption of the granted lands through process of law is bound to take time. Any negligence and delay on the part of the authorities entitled to take action to avoid such transfers through appropriate legal process for resumption of such grant may be further impediments in the matter of avoiding such transfers and resumption of possession of the granted lands. Prolonged legal proceedings will undoubtedly be prejudicial to the interests ot the members of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes for whose benefit the granted lands are intended to be resumed. Prolonged legal proceedings will undoubtedly be prejudicial to the interests ot the members of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes for whose benefit the granted lands are intended to be resumed. As transfers of granted lands in contravention of the terms of the grant or any law, regulation or rule governing such grants can be legally avoided and possession of such lands can be recovered through process of law, it must be held that the Legislature for the purpose of avoiding delay and harassment of protracted legation and in furthering its object of speedy restoration oi these granted lands to the members of the weaker communities is perfectly competent to make suitabfe provision for resumption of such granted lands by stipulating in the enactment that transfers of such lands in contravention of the terms of the grant or any regulation, rule or law regulating such grant wilt be void and providing a suitable procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice for achieving this purpose without recourse to prolonged litigation in Court in the larger interests of benefiting the members of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes. " ( 8 ) THEREFORE in my view, if the Judgment read as a whole, itcannot be said that the Supreme Court is contemplating that the resumption of the law is only in the event of violation of a condition as contended by Mr. Vigneshwar S. Sastry, learned Counsel. Para 24 of the said Judgment cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. Moreover, I must point out that these legislations are enacted in the larger interest of the upliftment of the SC and ST by the State. Any interpretation by Court has to serve the object of the constitutional provisions in the matter of upliftment of SC and ST. Any narrow interpretation defeating the very object of the Act, can not be accepted. ( 9 ) I may also usefully refer to a Judgment of my learned brotherin the case of THIPPAIAH vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND others. This Court, after noticing Section 4 of the Act has ruled as under:"language of the Section per se is very clear. Any narrow interpretation defeating the very object of the Act, can not be accepted. ( 9 ) I may also usefully refer to a Judgment of my learned brotherin the case of THIPPAIAH vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND others. This Court, after noticing Section 4 of the Act has ruled as under:"language of the Section per se is very clear. Sub-section (I) provides for the prohibition against the transfer of the granted lands : it provides that irrespective of what is provided in any other law or any agreement or contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, if that transfer has been made in contravention of the terms of grant of such lands or if that transfer is in contravention of law providing for such lands or if that transfer is in contravention of the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 then that transfer of granted land shall be null and void and that transfer shall not be taken to convey any right, title and interest in such land i. e. , in the granted land and further that it shall never be deemed to ever convey any title and interest to transfer. A perusal of sub- section (1) per se provides in the case i. e. , if a transfer of granted land is made in violation or in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 that shall be null and void and shall- be deemed not to have conveyed any rights or interest in the property. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act further provides that after the commencement of the Act no person shall transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the government nor shall any person acquire the granted land without the permission of the Government itself. It flows from sub-section (2) that any transfer of the granted land has been prohibited and it cannot be made and the only exception is the case where before the transfer the transferee or transferor obtains a permission from the Government i. e. prior to the making of the transfer. It further flows therefrom that the transfer made in contravention of sub-section (2) which is declared to be void cannot be validated by subsequent approval of that transfer by the Government. It further flows therefrom that the transfer made in contravention of sub-section (2) which is declared to be void cannot be validated by subsequent approval of that transfer by the Government. There is nothing to indicate that any previous permission of the State Government was obtained by either parties to the transaction exhibited and entered into under the registered sale deed dated 31. 5. 1988. In the petition as well no such averment has been made that transfer in 1988 had been made after having obtained a necessary permission of the Government. This being the position, in my opinion, in view of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 the appellate authority did not commit any error of law apparent on the face of the record or of jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Assistant commissioner and in allowing the appeal. " ( 10 ) THE said Judgment is equally applicable to this case. In thesecircumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. No other ground is urged before me. ( 11 ) IN the result, this petition stands dismissed but without any order as to costs. --- *** --- .