Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. The unsuccessful writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 14216 of 2005 are the appellants herein. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Sanjeevaiah who had purchased the agricultural land to an extent of 5 acres located in Sy. No. 1/1 in Nagegowdana Byala, Turuvekere Taluk, Tunrkur District from one Mudlaiah s/o Kempaiah a member of the Scheduled Caste in whose favour the said lands were granted by proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner in No. DD/Dis/1240/54-55, dated 9-1-1956 under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) on condition that the granted land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grant. That apart Section 4 of the Act also imposed a prohibition of transfer of the granted lands and the same reads as follows. "4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.—(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 light, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority". 2. The said grantee Mudlaiah s/o Kempaiah sold 3 acres of land under a registered sale deed dated 18-7-1965 which was registered as document Nos. 207365 and 207366, dated 20-9-1965 in favour of one Sanjeevaiah who is now represented by the petitioners-appellants herein and also sold 2 acres of land by sale deed dated 24-2-1965 in favour of one Eranna Gowda. Both the sale deeds are prohibited in law as the same are contrary to the conditions of grant and also Section 4 of the Act. Both the sale deeds are prohibited in law as the same are contrary to the conditions of grant and also Section 4 of the Act. The legal representatives of the original grantee Mudlaiah s/o Kempaiah who are the respondents 3 to 5 herein, filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of the impugned lands and restoration of the same to the appellants under Section 5 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner after due notice to the purchasers/their legal representatives inquired into the matter and passed an order on 22-6-2000 holding that both the sales are illegal as they are prohibited under Section 4 of the Act and have to be restored to the original grantee, passed an order of resumption in favour of respondents 3 to 5 and also permitted to transfer the khatha of the said lands in favour of respondents 3 to 5. Against the said order dated 22-6-2000 of the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner and the said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur by his order dated 28-3-2008. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners herein who are the legal representatives of Sanjeevaiah alone took an appeal with regard to the purchase of 3 acres of land from Mudlaiah. The legal representatives of Eranna Gowda had not challenged the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and therefore the same became final insofar as the legal representatives of Eranna Gowda are concerned. 3. In the appeal the petitioners herein also incidentally took the plea of adverse possession for the first time. However, no evidence was adduced in the regard. The Deputy Commissioner therefore by order dated 28-3-2005, of course after hearing the parties found that the petitioners have not placed the plea of adverse possession before the Assistant Commissioner and therefore they cannot find fault with the order of the Assistant Commissioner as the Assistant Commissioner cannot give a finding on the plea of adverse possession as the same was not raised before him. The Deputy Commissioner also found that the petitioners herein viz., who are the legal representatives of Sanjeevaiah have also participated in the proceedings on 23-8-1999, 11-10-1999 and 30-11-1999 and they were afforded adequate opportunity to defend their case. The Deputy Commissioner also found that the petitioners herein viz., who are the legal representatives of Sanjeevaiah have also participated in the proceedings on 23-8-1999, 11-10-1999 and 30-11-1999 and they were afforded adequate opportunity to defend their case. When the petitioners contended that the Revenue Authorities could not produce the original grant before the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner held that even in the absence of original land grant records, the Assistant Commissioner can still place reliance on the relevant mutation register extract and other documents such as darkhast register extract, mutation register extracts etc., and was entitled to come to the conclusion that respondents 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of the original grantee under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, finding no reason to interfere with order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 28-3-2005 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28-3-2005, the appellants herein filed Writ Petition No. 14216 of 2005 and reiterated their contentions raised before the Deputy Commissioner. Learned Single Judge by order dated 12-8-2008, particularly, taking notice of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that they did not dispute the fact of grant in favour of Mudlaiah a member of Scheduled Caste, held that the Assistant Commissioner rightly verified the original revenue records and passed the impugned order dated 22-6-2000 which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 28-3-2005 and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 5. Mr. Reuben Jacob, learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterating the submissions made before the learned Single Judge contends that in the absence of production of the original grant, the respondents 3 to 5 have no right to claim resumption and restoration of the property. 6.1 We are not able to appreciate the said argument as the order of the Assistant Commissioner as rightly confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner had perused the relevant revenue records and came to the conclusion that the legal representatives are entitled for restoration and resumption of the property and the learned Counsel himself has not disputed the fact that the grant was in favour of Mudlappa, who was a member of the Scheduled Caste. It is a typical case where the beneficiaries of a social legislation have been dragged by Court proceedings. It is a typical case where the beneficiaries of a social legislation have been dragged by Court proceedings. 6.2 The Act is intended to provide prohibition of transfer of certain lands by the Government to the persons belonging to the weaker sections viz., Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in order to achieve social justice and the dominant purpose behind the legislation was to restore the lands to the persons belonging to the said weaker sections who had been deprived of their lands and Section 4 prohibits the alienation of the granted land notwithstanding anything provided in any law to the contrary. Any agreement, contract or instrument for transfer of granted land made either before or after commencement of the Act made in contravention of the terms of the grant is therefore declared void. The transfer is not only a nullity but also void. The transferee/ alienee derives no right, title or interest in such land. Section 4 therefore strictly prohibits any person from purchasing granted land after the commencement of this Act. Any transfer or occupation of the said land without previous permission from the Government shall therefore be void. 6.3 Section 5 of the Act enables the interested person to make an application before the Assistant Commissioner who after an enquiry as he deems necessary and is satisfied that the transfer of such granted land is null and void, by an order take possession of such land and evict the transferee and restore the same to the weaker sections and pass an order of resumption. Section 5(3) lays clown statutory presumption. It is also apt to refer to Section 5 which reads as follows. "5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands.—(1) 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. (a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard; .(b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. (a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard; .(b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such grantee or legal heir, such land shall be deemed to have vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. The Government may grant such land to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to grant of land. (1-A) After an enquiry referred to in sub-section (1) the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass on order accordingly. (2)Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A, any order passed under sub-sections (1) and (1-A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. (3)For the purposes of this section, where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other than the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4”. 7. The resumption under Section 5 is incorporated to the extent that any person other than the grantee or his legal representatives who is in possession of the granted land, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the burden is shifted on the alienee or his legal representatives to prove that the transfer of such land is not null and void. Therefore, the burden is shifted on the alienee or his legal representatives to prove that the transfer of such land is not null and void. A reading of Section 5 again only contemplates a summary proceedings because the Legislature has clearly intended to avoid delay in passing orders in such matters as it would otherwise cause harassment to the weaker sections by protracted litigations as in the instant case. 7.1 The conjunct reading of Sections 4 and 5 makes it clear that even in the matter of resumption and restoration of the land to the weaker sections, the Act intends for a speedy disposal of the matters otherwise the very purple of the rule of law would be defeated. 7.2 As per the Scheme of the Act it is obvious that the provisions of the Act pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 have to be implemented in spirit and substance speedily and effectively to protect the interest of the weaker sections of the community so that the economic interest of the weaker sections can be protected and preserved intact and they can be prevented from exploitation by vested interests. 8. In the instant case it is apparent on the face of the record how the rights protected under the Act have been exploited by protracted by Court proceedings. It is pertinent to note that inspite of the service of notice on the 5th respondent he is not represented. 9. For all these reasons we do not see any merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed and the Assistant Commissioner concerned is directed to restore the possession to respondents 3 to 5 forthwith. The writ appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.