BANNURMATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned high Court Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents 3 (a) and (b) and 4. ( 2 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 20. 7. 1991 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South, and the affirmative order dated 29. 4. 2000 passed by the Special Deputy commissioner, Bangalore, rejecting the claim of the petitioner and declaring the sale of the land in dispute in favour of the Respondents 3 and 4 as void and resumption of the land and returning back the same to the petitioner has come up before this Court in the present petition. ( 3 ) AS per the allegations in the petition, in respect of the land survey No. 142 (old No. 22/3) of Suragajakkanahalli village, Anekal taluk, an area of 2 acres was granted to one Doddajulabhovi in the year 1956-57 under the then existing dharkhast (grant) rules, as the said Doddajulabhovi belonged to Schedule Caste. Incidentally the petitioner claims to be the daughter-in-law of the said Doddajulabhovi being the wife of Anjanappa. According to the petitioner, even though this land was granted under the then existing Land Grant Rules, as the sale of this land to the fathers of both Respondents 3 and 4 to an extent of one acre by the sale deeds dated 26. 5. 1975 and 24. 3. 1974 respectively was in violation of the Karnataka Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act (hereinafter referred to as the PTCL Act) and the Land grant Rules, she is entitled for a declaration of these sales as void as well as for resumption of the land and return back possession to her. On such a claim, she approached the Assistant Commissioner. On issuance of notice, the contesting respondents appeared before the Assistant Commissioner inter alia contending that the land in question was granted not under the general scheme but under Grow more Food Scheme which was a temporary scheme to which the prohibition of non-alienation under the PTCL Act and the Land Grant rules was not applicable. Considering the rival claims, the Assistant commissioner came to the conclusion that as per the Tahsildars order bearing No. SD/72/45-46 dated 1. 10. Considering the rival claims, the Assistant commissioner came to the conclusion that as per the Tahsildars order bearing No. SD/72/45-46 dated 1. 10. 1952 the land was granted under the Grow More Food Scheme and in this regard saguvali chit has been issued on 3. 10. 1952, this grant was made under the Grow more Food. The Assistant Commissioners observation is undisputed, as the petitioner herself has admitted in her application in this regard and as the land has been granted under the Grow More Food scheme and as such covered under the provisions of Rule 43 (5) of the Land Grant Rules and since there was no prohibition for alienation of such land the sale in favour of the fathers of respondents 3 and 4 is valid. Accordingly, the Assistant commissioner dismissed the application. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the Special Deputy commissioner affirming the conclusion arrived at by the Assistant commissioner. Hence, the present writ petition. ( 4 ) THOUGH various contentions have been raised regarding the nature of grant and the correctness of the findings, without going into the same, as the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are clearly in violation of the law laid down by this Court, the matter can be disposed of without entering into the merits. The division Bench of this Court in the case of PEDDA REDDY vs STATE of KARNATAKA1 has laid down that the Assistant Commissioner cannot pass orders under the provisions of the Land Grant Rules and the PTCL Act, unless he records the following findings, viz. , (1) that the land belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, (2) that the grant was for upset price or for less than upset price or free grant and (3) that alienation has taken place within the period of the prohibition prescribed in the Rules. As such, the nature of the grant and what are the conditions applicable to the period of nonalienation, etc. had to be first decided by the Assistant Commissioner. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner is that the grant was in the year 1956-57 and it was a grant for upset price under the general category. Whereas, the claim of the respondents is that the grant was a temporary grant under the Grow More Food Scheme. had to be first decided by the Assistant Commissioner. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner is that the grant was in the year 1956-57 and it was a grant for upset price under the general category. Whereas, the claim of the respondents is that the grant was a temporary grant under the Grow More Food Scheme. Since the prohibitory period of non-alienation for these two categories which govern by different provisions and consideration, the Assistant commissioner is required to find out what exactly was the nature of the grant. This he has to do only on the basis of either the original grant order or, if for some reason like the grant was made decades ago and as such the order of grant is not available, at least he has to look into the grant register maintained for this purpose. Time and again this Court has emphasized that the authorities cannot simply rely upon the saguvali chit produced by either of the parties. The saguvali chits are like certificates and in most of the case issued casually in the sense the saguvali chits are in printed form and while issuing the same most of the times the unnecessary and inapplicable portion is even not scored off, for example, in the first clause it is to be mentioned the land was granted by way of sale or public auction or for upset price or free of costs. The grant would be under any one of these categories. It is noticed that in most of the cases, even this unnecessary portion is not scored off thereby leaving it open to the imagination of the parties and authorities as to what is the nature of grant. Similarly, as law requires the non-alienation period is also be mentioned as a part of conditions in the saguvali chit. But, this is also not done usually. This Court has held that issuance of saguvali chit is an incidental act like issuing certificate practically being administrative action on the part of the authorities, but, for the purpose of application of the provisions of the Land Grant Rules and the PTCL Act the authorities are required to look into the original grant order or the records concerning it including the Land Grant register maintained for this purpose of which the authorities themselves are custodian. Without looking into these vital documents, most of the time the authorities just casually rely upon the saguvali chit and pass orders one way or the other. Since on one hand violation of the provisions of the Grant Rules and the PTCL Act, vis- -vis the property right by way of transfer is involved, the authorities are required and expected to make thorough enquiry especially when in most of the cases the grantees are illiterate persons coming from lower strata of the society. It is a mandatory duty of the authorities, as laid down by the Division Bench in Pedda Reddys case cited supra to verify from the records and give their findings based on such records. If that is not done, the orders passed by such authorities are unsustainable ones. ( 5 ) AS noted, the only finding of the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in the present case is that in the saguvali chit dated 3. 10. 1952 there is a mention that the land is granted under Grow More Food Scheme. In the present case, the respondents themselves have produced copy of such saguvali chit which does not disclose under what provision or scheme the land was granted to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. There is another erroneous finding of the Assistant Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner herself has admitted that the land was granted under Grow More Food. On a perusal of the original petition filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner this fact is also found to be incorrect. There is no such admission made by the petitioner. As such looking it from any angle and in the light of the pronouncement in Pedda Reddys case cited supra in my view the order of the Assistant Commissioner is unsustainable. The same mistake has been carried over by the Special Deputy Commissioner. As such the appellate order of the Special Deputy Commissioner is also unsustainable. As the authorities failed to comply with the mandatory requirements before passing the orders, as declared by this Court in Pedda Reddys case, in my view, the writ petition is to be allowed and the impugned order are to be quashed and remit the case to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. ( 6 ) IN the result, Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders, viz. ( 6 ) IN the result, Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders, viz. , the order dated 29. 4. 2000 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in KSC. ST (A) 19/1998-99 and the order dated 20. 7. 1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in ksc. ST. No. 11/1996-97 (Annexures C and D) are quashed. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South sub Division, Bangalore, with a direction to decide the case afresh, giving due and reasonable opportunity to both sides to put forth their contentions. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously at any rate within the outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of this order or from the production of copy of the same by either of the parties. The learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to send back the records to the concerned authority forthwith. --- *** --- .