( 1 ) SMT. Shobha Patil, learned Govt. Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. ( 2 ) LAND measuring 4-00 acres in Re-Sy. No. 26/1 of Chikka Arakere Village in Davangere District was a granted land under darkhast. The petitioner purchased the same within the non-alienation period contrary to the terms of the grant and in contravention of the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978. As a result of which, the Asst. Commissioner by the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 27. 7. 2001 declared the sale deeds are null and void. In the appeal preferred against the said order, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the same by his order at Annexure-B dated 3. 9. 2002. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the said orders. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are bad in law, placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Hanumanna vs Machappa reported in i. L. R 1995 Karnataka 3507. The counsel produced a copy of the Grant Certificate and contends that the date of grant was 19. 7. 1959 with non-alienation clause for 15 years but the sale was dated 18-5-1970, which was after the non-alienation period was over and hence the sale of the land was not contrary to the terms of grant order and also under the provisions of the Act. ( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioners counsel cannot be accepted. The impugned orders clearly states that the date of grant was 16. 8. 1967. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is held that the period of non-alienation commences from the date the Grant Order was issued. In the instant case, the Grant Certificate is dated 18. 8. 1967. Hence, the sale within three years is contrary to the terms of grant and in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The revenue authorities have rightly passed the impugned orders and since they are in accordance with law, the writ petition merits no consideration. ( 5 ) IT is to be noted that the grantee will not acquire any right in respect of the granted land unless Grant Certificate is issued and the upset price is paid. The revenue authorities have rightly passed the impugned orders and since they are in accordance with law, the writ petition merits no consideration. ( 5 ) IT is to be noted that the grantee will not acquire any right in respect of the granted land unless Grant Certificate is issued and the upset price is paid. As is seen from the Grant Certificate, the grantee paid the price on 5. 5. 1967 while Grant Certificate was issued on 18. 8. 1967. That being the factual position, the petitioner should not claim that the period of non-alienation started in the year 1959 when the grant was made. It is no doubt true that the grant was made in the year 1959 but Grant Certificate was issued only in the year 1967. That is the relevant date for computing the period of non-alienation. Viewed from this angle also, the petitioner has no case on merits. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to refer the matter to larger Bench cannot be accepted. The facts are clear and the law is against the petitioner. There is no referable point to a larger Bench. Writ Petition stands dismissed. The Govt. Pleader is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks. --- *** --- .