V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) LA. Nos. I to III are allowed. Delay is condoned, abatement is set aside and the legal representatives of deceased 3rd respondent are allowed to come on record. ( 2 ) THE prayer in this writ petition filed by the purchaser of the land is to quash the impugned orders at Annexures-B and C. In Annexure-A, dated 17-7-1997, the Assistant Commissioner held that the sale of land in Sy. No. 19 of Huralihally Village in Tarikere Taluk as null and void and directed resumption and restoration of the same to the grantee. The said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in Annexure-C, dated 8-6-1999. ( 3 ) THE land was granted to the 3rd respondent on 4-10-1973 in darkhast. Saguvali Chit was issued on 10-3-1975 with a non-alienation clause for 15 years. Despite such non-alienation clause, the grantee sold the land to the petitioner in the year 1990. Since, the sale of the land was before the expiry of 15 years, within the non-alienation period, the Assistant Commissioner held the sale as null and void and rightly the Deputy Commissioner affirmed the same. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) THE contention that the grantee does not belong to Scheduled Caste or scheduled Tribe and therefore the incorporation of non-alienation clause is not correct and the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 are not applicable to the case and consequently the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, is wholly untenable arid liable to be rejected. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition the petitioner himself has admitted that the land was granted to Scheduled Caste person. The grantee belongs to Bhovi Community, which is a Scheduled Caste. That apart, the petitioner purchased the land without obtaining previous permission of the Government. Hence, the transfer of land is contrary to Section 4 (2) of the Act. ( 5 ) THE further contention that the petitioner also belongs to the same caste and hence there is exemption, is without any basis. There is no such exemption provided under the Act. In the decision of Shyama Naik v State of karnataka and Others, this Court has clearly held that in respect of sale of land to the member of same Caste/tribe exemption is not available. There is no such exemption provided under the Act. In the decision of Shyama Naik v State of karnataka and Others, this Court has clearly held that in respect of sale of land to the member of same Caste/tribe exemption is not available. As noticed in the previous paragraph, petitioner asserts that the grantee does not belong to Scheduled Caste and at the same time claims exemption on the ground that he and the grantee belongs to the same caste. Petitioner does not know what he is asserting. His assertions are conflicting. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the land was granted for market price and therefore the non-alienation condition is not applicable to the sale of the land in question. The contention does not hold water. The assistant Commissioner found that the land was granted for an upset price rs. 50/- per acre but some of the lands of the same village were sold for higher prices. One item measuring 4-00 acres in Sy. No. 18/4 was sold to Rs. 2,500/- per acre while another item measuring 3-00 acres in Sy. No. 88 was sold to rs. 10,000/- per acre. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the land was granted for market price. Hence, the contention is rejected. ( 7 ) SINCE the petitioner purchased the land without obtaining previous permission of the Government and the purchase was within the non-alienation period, the impugned orders are perfectly in accordance with law. Writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the sale consideration paid to the land, if law permits for the same. --- *** --- .