ORDER Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.— The petitioners have raised the challenge to the order, dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure-B) passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order, dated 1 1.12.2008 (Annexure-A) passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. 2. The Facts of the case in brief are that the land measuring 3 acres situated at Survey No. 116 of Kurubarahalli Village, Tavarakere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, was granted to one Rangaiah on 31.1.1963. The said Rangaiah availed of some financial assistance from the father of the fourth respondent. On his inability to repay the amount, Rangaiah sold the land to the fourth respondent on 30.4.1966. Thereafter, the Saguvali Chit came to be issued to the said Rangaiah on 2 1.12.1967. The petitioners claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Rangaiah made an application before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [hereafter called 'PTCL Act' for short. The Assistant Commissioner took the view that, as the sale is effected even before the issuance of the Saguvali Chit, the grantee or his legal representatives are not entitled to restoration. He therefore passed the order, dated 24.2.2005 turning down the petitioners' request for the restoration of the granted land. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner directed that the lands be resumed to die Government free from encumbrances. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, who by his order, dated 11.12.2008 dismissed the petitioners' appeal by confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner's reasoning is that Rangaiah himself had not acquired any right and title over the land because he sold it to the respondent No. 4 even before the issuance of Saguvali Chit. 3. These two concurrent orders are being assailed in this writ petition. Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issuance of the Saguvali Chit is an administerial act. The non-issuance or the delay in its issuance of Saguvali Chit would not have the effect of validating the sale and/or the forfeiture of the lane to the Government. He submits that whether the Saguvali Chit is issued or not the rule imposing the embargo or restraint on alienating the property for fifteen years has to be given effect to. The non-issuance or the delay in its issuance of Saguvali Chit would not have the effect of validating the sale and/or the forfeiture of the lane to the Government. He submits that whether the Saguvali Chit is issued or not the rule imposing the embargo or restraint on alienating the property for fifteen years has to be given effect to. The learned Counsel pointedly brings to my notice the language employed in Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. The Legislature has consciously used the words "in contravention of the terms of the grant" and not "in contravention of the terms of the Grant Certificate or Saguvali Chit." 4. Sri Hebbar also relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court: in the case of Karappa Bovi v. Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore and Ors. reported in 1990 (3) Kar.L.J. (Supp.) 361. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereinbelow: 7. ...The moment land is granted to a member of the Scheduled Caste under the Darkhast Rules, whether it is free grant or for a reduced upset price, the prohibition against alienation imposed under the Rules operate, as held by the Division Bench in Laxmamma's case itself. Once such bar is prescribed under the statutory rules, that bar cannot be got over by any individual by violating the law even before the issue of Saguvali Chit. In our opinion, therefore, in respect of a granted land, whether the sale is made after the issue of Saguvali Chit or before, the effect is one and the same. It would be a sale in contravention of the terms of grant and therefore the prohibition contained in Section 4 of the Act gets attracted. In our opinion, the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner that in the present case that the sale was not in violation of the grant on the ground that the sale was before the issue of Saguvali Chit, is erroneous.... 5. Sri R. Devdas the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 fairly submits that what is relevant for determining the entitlement of (he grantee or his legal representatives to the restoration is the grant as such and not the Grant Certificate or the Saguvali Chit. 5. Sri R. Devdas the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 fairly submits that what is relevant for determining the entitlement of (he grantee or his legal representatives to the restoration is the grant as such and not the Grant Certificate or the Saguvali Chit. Sri Devdas submits that, as on the material date of granting the land to late Rangaiah on 31.1.1963, the relevant Rule applicable is Rule 43-G of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, as per which the grantee is forbidden from alienating the granted land for a period of fifteen years. The said provisions are extracted hereinbelow: 4. Where the grant is made free of cost, or is made at a price which is less than the full market value, the grant shall be subject, to the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land, after the grant. 6. Sri Devdas further submits that the enquiry as contemplated under Section 5(1) is conducted. The enquiry report reveals that Rangaiah belongs to Scheduled Caste and that he was granted the land and that he has alienated the land on 30.4.1966. He submits that under Section 5(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, a decision has to be taken whether it is reasonably practicable to restore the land to the grantee or his legal heirs. 7. The respondent No. 4 is served, but has remained unrepresented. 8. The facts are not in dispute. That Rangaiah belongs to Scheduled Caste, that he was granted the land on 31.1.1963, that he sold the land to Smt. K. Sarojamma (respondent No. 4) on 30.4.1966 and that Saguvali Chit was issued to Rangaiah on 21.12.1967 are not in dispute at all. The only question that falls for my consideration is whether the provisions of PTCL Act have application for the alienation of the land which has taken place after the grant was made, but before the issuance of the Saguvali Chit. The issue is no more res integra. It is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Karappa Bovi (supra). In the said reported case, the land was granted on 28.4.1965. On the very same day the land was sold and on the next day, i.e. on 29.4.1965. The issue is no more res integra. It is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Karappa Bovi (supra). In the said reported case, the land was granted on 28.4.1965. On the very same day the land was sold and on the next day, i.e. on 29.4.1965. the Saguvali Chit was issued to the petitioner. The Division Bench has taken the considered view that the statutory bar cannot be got over by an individual by violating the law even before the issuance of the Saguvali Chit. So long as the alienation takes place during the prescribed non-alienation period of 15 years, that transfer cannot but be held to be bad. In the said case, the Division Bench upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order invalidating the sale of the granted land and issued the direction for its restoration to the grantee. 9. For deciding whether the transfer is bad and whether the grantee is entitled to restoration, the issuance or non-issuance of Saguvali Chit does not make any difference. 10. Rule 43-G of the Mysore Land (Amendment) Rules, 1960 governing the field at the material point of time puts restriction on the alienation of the granted land for a period of fifteen years. The said provisions extracted hereinabove are to be considered in conjunction with Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, 4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands: (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law. agreement contract or instalment, 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 he null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or he deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. 11. The afore-extracted provisions speak of the transfer of granted land "in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land." The Legislature, in exercise of its wisdom, has not used the words "terms of the Grant Certificate or Saguvali Chit." It has appropriately used the words "terms of the grant". The terms of the grant are to be found in Rule 43-G of the Rules extracted hereinabove. 12. As held by this Court in the case of the Marilingaiah v. State of Karnataka and Ors. The terms of the grant are to be found in Rule 43-G of the Rules extracted hereinabove. 12. As held by this Court in the case of the Marilingaiah v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported as Short Note-5 in 2000 (1) Kar.L.J., once it is found that alienation of the granted land is illegal, the Assistant Commissioner is ordained to resume the land and restore it to the grantee. Once the alienation is held to be null and void, the Assistant Commissioner's power and duty are to restore the lands to the grantee or his legal heirs, unless for the reasons to be recorded, the restoration is not reasonably practicable. Restoring is a rule; not restoring is an exception. One such circumstance for holding that it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land could be that the grantee is dead and that he has not left behind him any legal representative at all. 13. The laudable object of the PTCL Act is the empowerment of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, The scheme of FFCL Act embodies the concept of distributive justice, which essentially means the removal of economic inequalities and rectifying the injustice caused by the unconscionable bargaining and forbidden property transfers between unequals in the society. Viewed in this perspective, there is no reasoned justification for denying the restoration of the granted land to the legal representatives of the deceased grantee. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, I allow this petition by quashing the impugned orders insofar as they pertain to the refusal to restore the land to the petitioners. That portion of the impugned orders which holds that the sale in favour of the fourth respondent is bad. is upheld. Further, the Assistant Commissioner is directed to hold an enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the late Rangaiah. On satisfying himself that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Rangaiah the Assistant Commissioner shall redeliver the possession of the land to them. It is made clear that the Assistant Commissioner can refuse to re-deliver the possession of the land in question to the petitioners if he finds that they are not the legal representatives of the late Rangaiah. 15. No order as to costs.