Judgment :- This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Praying to call for the entire records from the Respondent Nos 2 and 3 which ultimately resulted in passing the Order Anx-A Dt.17.03.2009 Made In No. PTCL.19/2004 passed by the R2 and Anx-B Order Dt. 5.11.2004 Made In No. PTCL.8/2001-02 passed by the R3 and Etc…. Writ petitioner claims to be purchaser of an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 63 of A. Nagathihalli Village, Bidiganavile Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, under a sale deed dated 14.3.1996 executed by fourth respondent – her father–in–law in view of her father–in–law being in need of funds to celebrate his daughter’s marriage. 2. The said land was one which had been granted in favour of fourth respondent – Boraiah under Darkhast on 31.10.1983 as a person belonging to scheduled caste and on payment of kimmath of Rs.20/- by the fourth respondent. 3. While it is not very clear as to whether the father-in-law is in possession and enjoyment of the property, the fourth respondent having made an application to the Assistant Commissioner invoking section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short ‘the Act’) claiming that the subject land is in possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioner and seeking for invalidating the sale transaction and for restitution of the land in his favour, the Assistant Commissioner held an enquiry and found that the granted land having been transferred as per sale deed dated 14.3.1996 in clear violation of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, declaring sale as void, directed resumption of the land and to restitute it to the fourth respondent as per order dated 5.11.2004 (copy at Annexure-B). 4. The aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner under section 5-A of the Act in PTCL.19/2004 in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 17.3.2009 (copy at Annexure-A) upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the present writ petition. 5. The salient ground on which the petitioner has urged examination of this writ petition is that she is also a person belonging to scheduled caste community being very daughter-in-law of the grantee and therefore in the light of the Judgment of this court rendered in the case of V. Nanjappa Vs. 5. The salient ground on which the petitioner has urged examination of this writ petition is that she is also a person belonging to scheduled caste community being very daughter-in-law of the grantee and therefore in the light of the Judgment of this court rendered in the case of V. Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1998 (5) KLJ 458, it is possible to save sale transaction, particularly, in the wake of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, as it stood earlier, having allowed relaxation of the transfer of such lands granted in favour of the persons belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community in favour of persons belonging to the very community etc… 6. At the time of preliminary hearing, this court recorded as under; “In view of the decision in the case of ‘V Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka’ (1998 (5) KLJ 458), the matter requires consideration. Hence, issue notice.” 7. Writ petition though has been listed for non issue of notice to first respondent – State of Karnataka, Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, this deficiency is fulfilled. 8. In the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have looked into the merits of the matter with the assistance of Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate. 9. I have also perused the decision of this court in V. Nanjappa’s case (supra), but no ratio is discernible in this decision, which can constitute a precedent, leave alone a binding precedent, that is required to be applied to the facts of the present case. 10. In the first instance, it is not known as to whether the transaction in V. Nanjappa’s case (supra) was one prior to the Act coming into force or later. 10. In the first instance, it is not known as to whether the transaction in V. Nanjappa’s case (supra) was one prior to the Act coming into force or later. But, even there, the decision obviously appears to be in ignorance of the purpose and object of the introduction of Rule 29-A of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and as it stands now there being no corresponding rule which is referred to in Rule 29-A and moreover learned Judge rendering the decision having decided the case on a concession made by himself as is found in the first sentence of paragraph-4 of this Judgment reading as under, “I do concede, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that under the normal rules of interpretation the provisions of the Act would ordinarily prevail.” The decision is an exception and not a rule. Be that as it may, there is no ratio discernible. Even assuming the transaction involved in the decision of this court in V. Nanjappa’s case (supra), was one subsequent to the Act coming into force, it is a decision rendered in ignorance of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act and therefore the decision is per incuriam. 11. Sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act being a provision found in the plenary legislation, i.e. in the Act, a rule assuming that it is so and currently found in the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, it is a piece of subordinate legislation and therefore not one that can prevail over the provisions of the Act. 12. With the transaction of the year 1996, not having been preceded by permission granted by the State Government, the transaction is voided. The provisions of section 4(2) of the Act operate and it is not persons who matter so much except for the fact that the land is one granted in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community and the transaction i.e., sale transaction of the year 1996 being voided, the consequence inevitably follow in law and therefore the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are quite valid, to be sustained. 13. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed.