Judgment : 1. These two writ petitions are referred to the Bench by the learned Single Judge, in order to give a finding by the Bench as to whether the land which has been granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Community as provided under Section 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, continues to retain its character as granted land, even after the expiry of the period during which the grant is subject to condition of non-alienation. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for both the parties submit that the question now referred to by this Bench by a learned Single Judge is no more res integra. It would be useful for us to refer to the definition of a granted land as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, which reads as hereunder: “Granted land” means any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word “granted” shall be construed accordingly”. 3. From the above definition clause, it is clear that any land granted by the Government to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person under a relevant law for the time being a force relating to land reforms and land ceilings or abolition of inams, has to be treated as granted land only. 4. Section 4 of the Act reads as hereunder: “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 right, 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. (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-section (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”. 5. As per sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, transfer of granted land made in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant whether the transfer is before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be null and void and no right will be conveyed by such transfer. 6. As per sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, there is prohibition for transferring or acquiring any right by transfer of any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. 7. A conjoint reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Act shows that if the transfer of granted land is made in violation of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant whether such transfer is before or after the Act came into force, the same is rendered null and void. Whereas, in the case of transfer of land after the commencement of the Act even though the said transfer is not in contravention of the terms of the grant or the law providing for such grant, the same is rendered null and void. 8. It is thus clear that the intention of the Legislature is that, after the commencement of the Act there shall be prohibition for transfer of granted land even though the period of non-alienation had expired and the grantee was otherwise entitled to transfer. It is therefore clear that the term ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act cannot be given a restricted meaning to say that the land losses the characteristic of a granted land after the expiry of non-alienation period. 9. It is well-established principle of interpretation of statutes, that legislative intention or the true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the object which comprehends the mischief and provides remedy. In ordinary cases, the language employed is the determining factor for gathering the intention of the legislature. 9. It is well-established principle of interpretation of statutes, that legislative intention or the true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the object which comprehends the mischief and provides remedy. In ordinary cases, the language employed is the determining factor for gathering the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the intention of the Legislature must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. 10. In the instant case, the definition of granted land under Section 3(1)(b) does not contain any ambiguity. It means, land granted by the Government to any of the Scheduled Castes or Castes or Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the law relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams. There is absolutely no room to infer that such granted land will enjoy the characteristic of granted land as per the definition, only till the non-alienation period or the conditions imposed with regard to the same at the time of grant are in force. Any attempt to read into the definition such a requirement will tantamount to super adding a condition into the definition of the term ‘granted land’. If that was the intention. The legislature would have made it clear while enacting the definition clause of ‘granted land’ stating that it would remain granted land only during the non-alienation period and not thereafter. The language of the statute has to be read as it is. Addition of words is permissible only when it appears to the Court that such words have been accidentally omitted or if such addition is not resorted to, the existing provision or some of the words used therein will be rendered meaningless. In other words, a departure from the rule of literal construction may be legitimate in order to avoid any part of the statute becoming meaningless or in order to give effect to the intention of the Legislature which is apparent from the Act read as a whole. In the instant case, by looking at the definition of ‘granted land’, there is no such difficulty or ambiguity in understanding the true meaning of the term ‘granted land’ nor is there any accidental omission of any words any which are required to be read in. In the instant case, by looking at the definition of ‘granted land’, there is no such difficulty or ambiguity in understanding the true meaning of the term ‘granted land’ nor is there any accidental omission of any words any which are required to be read in. It is not shown to us by the learned Counsel that unless such addition is made to the definition of the term ‘granted land’ any part of the statute will become meaningless or the purpose for which the enactment is made gets defeated. On the contrary, as can be seen from sub-sections (1) of Section 4 of the Act, the consequence of transfer of granted land in contravention of the terms of the grant whether before or after the Act came into force violating the terms of the grant is that such transfer is null and void. Similarly, as per Section 4(2) the consequence of transfer of granted land after the commencement of the Act without the permission of the Government regardless of the expiry of non-alienation period is that such transfer is declared, null and void. 11. Therefore, if the definition of ‘granted land’ is given a restricted meaning to include any such granted lands which are subject to the condition of non-alienation and which period ha not expired, then it will do harm to the language employed in sub-section (2) of Section 4 and the intention of the Legislature in imposing prohibition from alienating a granted land after the commencement of the Act inspite of expiry of non-alienation period cannot be over looked. Such construction will be against the intention of the Legislature as can be clearly made out from a conjoint reading of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Act. Hence, we answer the reference in the following way. 12. The definition of the term ‘granted land’ as used in Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, is not restricted to such granted land only so long as them was prohibition from alienation. Even after the expiry of the period or condition of non-alienation, the land continues to be a granted land for the purpose of the Act. 13. In sub-section (2) of Section 4, it is made very clear that after coming into force of the Act, no person shall without the previous permission of the Government, convey by transfer any granted land. 13. In sub-section (2) of Section 4, it is made very clear that after coming into force of the Act, no person shall without the previous permission of the Government, convey by transfer any granted land. From this it is clear that in view of the Act coming into force with effect from 1-1-1979, the granted land to SC or ST person shall not be sold or shall not be acquired by any person without the previous permission of the Government. If any person purchases the granted land, subsequent to 1-1-1979 without permission of the Government, such transfer shall be treated as null and void. 14. Under Section 4(2) two conditions are imposed. One, with regard to alienation made prior to 1-1-1979 and another a sale to be effected after commencement of the Act, with effect from 1-1-1979. 15. So far as the granted land which were not alienated even after completion of the period of non-alienation prescribed under the grant, would be invalid, if such transfer is taken place without prior permission of the Government. So far as the transaction of sale taken place prior to 1-1-1979 would be valid provided the alienation period has been completed as per the grant. Accordingly, we answer the point for reference. List the matter before the learned Single Judge.