R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. ( 1 ) AN extent of 10 cents of land in Sy. No. 120/39 of Jeppinamogaru village of Mangalore Taluk was granted to one Koje alias Kochi d/o. Kavura under the depressed classes darkhast, in D. D. R. No. 3/1335, dated 31-7-1925. The said Koje sold the said land in favour of one seethu Hengsu under the registered sale deed dated 5-11-1956. The said sale deed describes that both the vendor and the purchaser as belonging to Harijan caste. The said Seethu Hengsu in turn sold the said land in favour of the petitioners under registered sale deed dated 1-8-1968. Ever since then the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land, as owners. It is stated that Jeppinamogaru Village now falls within the city limits of Mangalore. ( 2 ) THE Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act' for short), came into force on 1-1-1979. 2. 1 Section 4 of the PTCL Act prohibits the transfer of granted lands. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 which is relevant is extracted below:" (1) 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 or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer". 2. 2 "granted land" is defined under Section 3 (b) of the Act as meaning any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word "granted" shall be construed accordingly. 2. 3 Section 5 deals with the resumption and restitution of granted lands. 2. 3 Section 5 deals with the resumption and restitution of granted lands. It provides that where, on application by any interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of Section 4, he may, by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof and restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. ( 3 ) THE 4th respondent initiated proceedings under Sections 4 (1) and 5 of the PTCL Act in regard to the said land in case No. A. DIS. PTL. CR. 11/91-92. After examining the records and after giving a hearing to the petitioner, he passed an order on 6-2-1992. He held that the land in question had been granted to one Koje on 31-7-1925 under depressed classes darkhast and such grant was governed by Board's Standing Order No. 15 of the Board of Revenue (Madras ). He held that under the board's Standing Order No. 15 ('bso No. 15' for short), a land granted under the depressed classes darkhast could not be alienated to any person (whether a member of the depressed class or not) in any manner before expiry of 10 years from the date of the grant, nor even thereafter, except to other members of that class. The Assistant Commissioner held that even though the alienation was after the expiry of the 10 years from the date of grant and was in favour of a person belonging to a depressed class, the subsequent alienation was in favour of a person not belonging to a depressed class and therefore the sale was in violation of the conditions of the grant and consequently Section 4 (1) was attracted. The assistant Commissioner therefore declared the sale deed dated 1-8-1968 in favour of the petitioners as null and void under Section 4 (1) of the Act and directed resumption of the land and restoration of the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal before the 5th respondent in A. DIS. SC ST. PTCL 28/92-93. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal by order dated 21-12-1993 confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal before the 5th respondent in A. DIS. SC ST. PTCL 28/92-93. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal by order dated 21-12-1993 confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed w. P. No. 5545 of 1994 challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The said petition was allowed by order dated 10-4-1997 on the ground that neither the Assistant Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner had looked into the original order of grant and no finding had been recorded in regard to the nature of grant or on the question whether the purchasers (petitioners) had perfected their title by adverse possession. The learned Single Judge therefore set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 6-2-1992 and the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 21-12-1993. He directed the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and the decision of this Court in the case of Pedda Reddy v State of Karnataka. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the Assistant Commissioner has considered the matter and passed an order on 26-5-1998 holding that the sale in favour of petitioners is void. On appeal by the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 20-6-2000. The said two orders are challenged by the petitioners in this petition. The learned Single Judge who heard the matter has referred it to the Division Bench as the petition involved an important question as to whether the bar regarding alienation contained in the relevant rule at the time of grant, that is Board's Standing Order No. 15 (38) (f), applied only to a transfer by the grantee or applied even to a subsequent sale by the transferee from the original grantee. ( 6 ) IN Pedda Reddy's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with a grant made under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, held that the Assistant Commissioner cannot declare a sale of granted land to be void under the PTCL Act, unless he records specific findings that, (i) the grant was made in favour of a person belonging to SC or ST; (ii) that the grant was either at a upset price or a free grant or for a price less than upset price; and (iii) that the alienation had taken place within the period of prohibition prescribed under the relevant rules. In nagendrappa v Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, a learned Single judge of this Court has held that where the nature of grant is disputed, the authority deciding the matter under PTCL Act has to subjectively satisfy himself first as to the nature of the grant and then the conditions of the grant; that for this purpose he should look into the original order granting the land and if the same is not available, then any contemporaneous document like the Land Grant Register maintained for recording the grants. It was made clear that the authority deciding the validity of sale cannot act on presumptions or inferences or mutation entries. ( 7 ) IN this case, the records disclose that the land was granted under the depressed classes darkhast on 31-7-1925. The order of grant is not available. Nor is there any record which shows whether any conditions were imposed while granting the land. In the absence of availability of the order of grant or a certified or authenticated copy thereof or other document disclosing the conditions of grant, it has to be assumed that the terms/conditions of the grant would be the same as those contained in the rules governing the grant. It is but logical that no grant order will contain a term contrary to the rules relating to grant applicable at the relevant time. ( 8 ) IN this case, it is not disputed that the grant was made under the standing Order of Board of Revenue (Madras) relating to grants to depressed classes. Board's Standing Order No. 15 (38) dealt with reservation of land for assignment of depressed classes. ( 8 ) IN this case, it is not disputed that the grant was made under the standing Order of Board of Revenue (Madras) relating to grants to depressed classes. Board's Standing Order No. 15 (38) dealt with reservation of land for assignment of depressed classes. It provided that in the case of villages which contain a considerable extent of land available for occupation, the Divisional Officer should, and in all other villages, he may, if he thinks it necessary in the interests of the depressed classes, set apart a specific area for assignment for cultivation to the depressed classes. Clause (f) of Board's Standing Order 15 (38) contained the bar regarding alienation and it is extracted below:"assignments whether of ordinary land or of valuable land in these areas, will be subject to the condition that the lands shall not be alienated to any person (whether a member of the depressed classes or not) in any manner before the expiry of ten years from the date of the grant nor even thereafter, except to other members of these classes. In cases of assignment outside these areas, the special conditions should be imposed only where concession are enjoyed by assignees as being members of the depressed classes. If the condition of non-alienation is violated or if the land ceases to be owned by the assignee or his legal heirs or (after the ten years) other members of their class, owing to sale by process of law or otherwise, or if default is made in the payment of the government revenue on the dates prescribed, the grant will be liable to be resumed by the Government who will be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the land without payment of any compensation or refund of the purchase money. This prohibition does not, however, apply to hypothecation of the land to Government under the Land Improvement and agriculturists' Loans Act or to a co-operative society which is solely composed of members of the depressed classes nor does it operate to debar payment of compensation when such lands are subsequently acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The power of resuming the grant and ordering re-entry referred to above will vest in the revenue Divisional Officer". [note. The provisions of this paragraph apply to the districts of Chin- glepet and South Kanara also. The power of resuming the grant and ordering re-entry referred to above will vest in the revenue Divisional Officer". [note. The provisions of this paragraph apply to the districts of Chin- glepet and South Kanara also. ] ( 9 ) THE effect of the said provision is that if any grantee belonging to a depressed class alienates the granted land to anyone before the expiry of ten years from the date of the grant, it will be invalid. Further, even after the expiry of ten years, any alienation of such granted land, to be valid, should only be to another member of the depressed classes and not to others. It follows therefore that any alienation of such granted land whenever made, to a person not belonging to depressed classes, will be invalid. It is not possible to restrict the prohibition regarding alienation only to the first sale/alienation, that is, alienation by the original grantee (or his legal heirs ). The contention that where the first sale is after the expiry of 10 years from the date of grant, in favour of another person belonging to depressed classes, the restriction in Board's Standing Order No. 15 (38) (f) would cease to operate and the purchaser who becomes the absolute owner can alienate it to anyone else (that is even to a person not belonging to a depressed class), cannot be accepted. Para (3) of clause (f) of BSO No. 15 (38) provides that if the condition of non-alienation is violated or if the land ceases to be owned by the assignee or his legal heirs or (after the ten years) other members of their class, the grant will be liable to be resumed by the Government who will be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the land without payment of any compensation or refund of the purchase money. Paras (1) and (3) of clause (f) of BSO No. 15 (38) make it clear that the restriction in regard to alienation contained therein applies not only to the first alienation, that is alienation by the grantee, but to all the subsequent alienations also. Any alienation even after 10 years from the date of grant will be valid only if such alienation is to a person belonging to depressed class. Any subsequent sale to a person who does not belong to the depressed class, will be invalid. Any alienation even after 10 years from the date of grant will be valid only if such alienation is to a person belonging to depressed class. Any subsequent sale to a person who does not belong to the depressed class, will be invalid. ( 10 ) BUT as far as this case is concerned, the contention of the respondents based on the provisions of clause (f) of BSO No. 15 (38) will not apply. The authorities have recorded a finding that the land was granted to Koje on 31-7-1925 under depressed classes darkhast, covered by Board's Standing Order No. 15. The legal representatives of Koje (respondents 1 to 3 herein) do not dispute it. Clause (f) of Board's Standing Order No. 15 (38) prohibiting alienation to any person other than the members of the depressed classes was not in existence in the year 1925. The first para of clause (f) was inserted by G. O. No. 889 (Rev.), dated 1-6-1926, the second para of clause (f) was introduced by G. O. Ms. 2557 rev. , dated 22-12-1932. The third para of clause (f) was inserted by g. O. Ms. 3092 Rev. , dated 12-12-1940. The fourth para of clause (f) was inserted by G. O. 1877 Rev. , dated 25-7-1939. When the grant was made in favour of Koje in the year 1925, the Board's Standing Orders did not contain any bar, prohibition or restriction in regard to alienation. Section 4 of the PTCL Act declares a transfer as void, only if the granted land is transferred in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant. If the law providing for such grant does not contain any prohibition or restriction regarding alienation, it is not possible to presume that the grant contained a prohibition or restriction in regard to sale, where the actual grant is not available. As stated above, where the order of grant or a record of the terms of the grant is not available, it has to be assumed that the grant was in a'ccord- ance with the rules that governed grants at the relevant point of time. As stated above, where the order of grant or a record of the terms of the grant is not available, it has to be assumed that the grant was in a'ccord- ance with the rules that governed grants at the relevant point of time. In this case, having regard to the law (BSO No. 15) providing for such grant at the relevant time, it has to be held that there was no prohibition or restriction in regard to alienation in the grant in favour of Koje. Therefore, neither the sale deed dated 5-11-1956 nor the subsequent sale deed dated 1-8-1968 can be held to be a transfer in contravention of any term of the grant. Hence, Section 4 (1) of the PTCL Act is not attracted. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were not therefore justified in holding that the alienation to be invalid. ( 11 ) IN view of the above, we allow this petition and quash the order dated 26-5-1998 passed by the fourth respondent (Annexure-B) and the order dated 20-6-2000 passed by the fifth respondent (Annexure-A ). --- *** --- .