ORDER 1. Writ petition by the legal heir of a purchaser of a piece of agricultural land measuring 2 acres 6 guntas in survey No. 139 of Chintamani Village in terms of the sale deed dated 16-7-1965. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17-7-1998 (copy at Annexure-B) passed by the Assistant Commissioner invalidating the sale transaction and affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of his order dated 13-2-2004 (copy at Annexure-A) under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (PTCL) Act, 1978 (for short the Act) and therefore the writ petition. 3. In between these two orders, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner once earlier which though was dismissed in terms of the order dated 2-8-2000, writ petition against this order came to be allowed in terms of the order dated 12-9-2000 passed in writ petition No. 28990/2000 by this Court and the matter having been remanded by the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration of the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order now challenged in the present round of writ petition. 4. Mr. Reddappa, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions. It is firstly urged that the predecessor of the petitioner having purchased the land in the year 1965 and having enjoyed the land without interruption for more than thirty years even by the time the application was filed, the petitioner had perfected his title even by way of adverse possession by the time the proceedings were initiated under the Act. 5. It is alternatively contended that the petitioner/father of the petitioner at any rate had enjoyed the land for a period of more than twelve years even by the time the Act came into force i.e. by 1-1-1979 and, therefore, also the petitioner had perfected the title to the land even by adverse possession, inasmuch as, it is the version of the petitioner that the grant of the year 1949-50 in terms of the Grant Order dated 9-2-1950 was not a grant which had retained the title with the Government, but under which the title had passed on to the grantee and, therefore, the period for prescribing title is only twelve years. 6. 6. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shanthakumar v. Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur, reported in ILR 2004 Kar 4006. Submission is that in the absence of a clear finding by the appellate authority as to whether the period of non-alienation is 12 years or 30 years in the context of the nature of the grant and particularly the original grant records being not available for which the Deputy Commissioner though had called the same from the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar having replied that the grant records were not available, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable; that the matter requires to be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for a precise answer on this question in terms of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Shanthakumars case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the non-availability of the original records, non-examination of the same and in the absence of the precise date on which the grant was made and the condition subject to which the land had been granted, the authorities could not have given uninformed findings to hold that the grant was subject to the condition that the land should not be alienated for good and, therefore, the transfer of the year 1965 was in violation of such conditions. 8. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nagendrappa v. Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, reported in ILR 2002 Kar 2670. 9. 8. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nagendrappa v. Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, reported in ILR 2002 Kar 2670. 9. Yet another contention urged on behalf of the petitioner by Sri Reddappa, learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the vendor and the vendee i.e., the grantee and the purchaser belong to Scheduled Castes community and, therefore, in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of V. Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1998 Kar Sn No. 67 : (1998 AIHC 5026) and as in terms of the Rule 29-A of the Rules, transfers inter se between the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes persons being not prohibited and the purchaser also being a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community, the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner should not have become active to invalidate such transfer. 10. One another contention urged on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel is that the respondent No. 1 who had filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for invalidating the sale transaction was not a legal heir of the grantee; that she had claimed as a foster daughter etc., and when the respondent No. 1 was not the real legal heir and the purchaser also being the person belonging to Scheduled Castes community, there was no need to disturb the transaction, particularly, as the land granted had remained in possession and cultivation of person belonging to Scheduled Castes community and, therefore, also should not have acted to invalidate the sale transaction. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner/his father did not have a proper opportunity to represent their case before the Assistant Commissioner as the order was an ex parte order and at which time the petitioners-father was sick and could not attend to the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, but even the appeal having not been disposed of satisfactorily by the Deputy Commissioner, the matter requires to be remanded for proper consideration of all the contentions urged by the petitioner and for recording a finding where upon the decision should be rendered. 12. 12. Per contra, Sri Narayanaswamy, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the application had been properly moved before the Assistant Commissioner by the respondent No. 1; that the respondent No. 1 is a legal heir even as per the documents placed before the authorities; that she is the sisters daughter of the original grantee; that the Assistant Commissioner was justified in invalidating the sale transaction and directing resumption of the land in favour of the State and restituting it to the applicant; that, in fact, in terms of an order dated 21-10-1999 (copy at Annexure-R2), the land in question had been restored in favour of the respondent No. 1 and it is only thereafter the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner which also came to be dismissed in the first round where upon the matter was carried in a writ petition and on remand the Deputy Commissioner having examined all aspects and having dismissed the appeal, no interference is called for. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 also submits that the grant is dated 9-2-1950 even as indicated in the records of the revenue authorities pursuant to the grant of No. AKDR 223/1949-50 (copy at Annexure-R1) as quoted in the sketch prepared at the time of phoding the land and in terms of the relevant rules that governed such grants on the date of the grant i.e., in terms of R. 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, the condition that is incorporated into all such grants is one of permanent non-alienation, particularly, as it is not in dispute that the grant was in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Castes community and if such is the condition, the sale transaction of the year 1965 being in violation of such condition of the grant, the provisions of S. 4 is squarely attracted; that the Assistant Commissioner had no choice but to invalidate the transaction and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly affirmed the same in appeal and, therefore, no interference is called for. 14. 14. It is also the submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the grant was never an absolute grant but on the other hand was a limited grant that the grantee being imposed with a condition that be can never transfer the land and, therefore, the Government having retained substantial interest in the land, the period for prescribing title by way of adverse possession retained by the Government being 30 years, and such period having not elapsed and the argument for prescribing title by adverse possession cannot succeed and rightly the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the sale transaction etc., that the respondent No. 1 having been put into possession even in the year 1999, nothing more is required to be done, particularly, for disturbing the restoration of the land in favour of the applicant. 15. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Though Sri Reddappa, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions and has urged vehemently that the Deputy Commissioner has not fully considered the various contentions raised and has not answered the relevant issues, I am not able to accept that submission as on a perusal of the order, I find that the Deputy Commissioner as an appellate authority has shown awareness to all such arguments and has met the arguments in terms of the order dated 13-2-2004 (copy at Annexure-4). 16. Though Sri Reddappa, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that arguments regarding adverse possession, particularly as to why period of 30 years alone applies to the petitioner to claim adverse possession has not been discussed and, therefore, the matter merits remand, I am of the view that the Deputy Commissioner has rejected this argument and has shown his awareness about the question. Having regard to the nature of the grant, namely, being grant in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Castes community in the year 1950 and subject to Rule 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, the period can only be 30 years and not 12 years as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. 17. Though the argument of non-availability of the record is projected placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shanthakumars case (ILR 2004 Kar 4006), in the present case, there is no dispute that the grant was in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Castes community and, therefore, the grant is necessarily governed by R. 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code and irrespective of the condition mentioned in the grant order, in view of the provisions of S. 4(1) of the Act, the violation of condition imposable under the rules governing such grants is also a criteria for invalidating the sale transaction and accordingly the availability or non-availability of the records does not make any difference as the transaction of the year 1965 was in violation of the condition provided under R. 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code. The transaction is hit in terms of S. 4(1) of the Act and, therefore, the argument that the original records had not been perused does not assume much significance. On the other hand, the authorities have looked into the available records which clearly indicated that the grant was of the year 1950 in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Castes community under the Adi Karnataka Depressed Classes Dharkhast Proceedings and, therefore, the grant is one which is governed by R. 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code. 18. On the other hand, the authorities have looked into the available records which clearly indicated that the grant was of the year 1950 in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Castes community under the Adi Karnataka Depressed Classes Dharkhast Proceedings and, therefore, the grant is one which is governed by R. 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code. 18. The contention that the purchaser was also a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community and, therefore, there is no violation under the transfer, particularly, as R. 29-A of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules which came into vogue much later, the saving clause was very much available at the time of the transfer and, therefore, the transaction should not have been invalidated is an argument which cannot be accepted nor one which makes any difference to the present result, inasmuch as, even assuming for argument sake that there was no prohibition for transfer of the land in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Castes community by the grantee at the relevant time, it is a condition which operates independently but the overall condition being one of permanent prohibition against any transfer whether in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Castes community or otherwise, the transaction of the year 1965 is inevitably in violation of R. 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code and, therefore, the provisions of the Act, particularly, S. 4(1) of the Act is attracted and the order passed by the authorities cannot be found fault with. 19. A perusal of the orders and examination of the facts and circumstances of the case and on applying the relevant law, I find that it is inevitable that the transaction of the year 1965 gets invalidated. The land is required to be resumed to the State and restituted to the grantee or legal heirs of the original grantee and that precisely being the action taken by the authorities, there is no scope for interference with the impugned orders. 20. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. 21. Petition dismissed.