Judgment :- 1. Writ petitions by two grantees who were granted an extent of 3 acres of land each in Old Sy.No.13 of H.Rangapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tarikere Taluk in terms of a grant order No.LND.DARU (SC) 28/68-69 dated 14.7.1971 passed by the Tahsildar, Tarikere Taluk (copy produced as Annexure A to the petition), which had been followed-up by issuing a saguvali chit dated 27.03.1972 and the lands having been granted to such persons in darkasth proceedings as persons belonging to scheduled caste community. But they having lost the lands whether by hook or crook or bona fide or out of sheer ignorance whatever it is, having parted possession of the land in favour of one Kalleshappa immediately thereafter, who is turn appears to have mortgaged the subject lands in favour of Canara Bank as security to a loan raised by him in the Bank and which had been sold by the Bank for enforcement of the loan in an auction sale held by the Court in the year 1984, the 3rd respondent herein having purchased the subject lands and thereafter though was in possession and enjoyment, at the instance of the writ petitioners, the Asst. Commissioner, Tarikere Sub-Division after holding an enquiry under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short ‘the Act’) having invalidated the sale deed executed in favour of the 3rd respondent through the Court Auction sale and having directed resumption of the land to the State and restoration to the original grantee as per two orders both dated 9.01.2009 (copies produced as Annexures E & F to the petition) and in further appeal to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner having set aside the orders passed by the Asst. Commissioner in terms of his two orders both dated 7.12.2009 (copies produced as Annexures-G and H to the petition) and having rejected the application of the writ petitioners, the present writ petition to get over the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and to achieve their object of recovering the lands that had been granted in the year 1972 which perhaps they had lost in the immediate vicinity etc. 2. Writ petitions have been admitted for examination. 2. Writ petitions have been admitted for examination. Respondents had been served with notices while the State – Statutory Authorities are represented by the learned AGA – Sri R. Omkumar, Sri. Prasanna, learned counsel appears for the contesting 3rd respondent – the purchaser in the auction sale. 3. Writ petitions are taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 4. Heard Sri. Mahantesh Hosmath, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Prasanna, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. 5. While it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner is bad in law; that he should not have interfered with the orders passed by the Asst. Commissioner, particularly, having regard to the object of the Act, the Asst. Commissioner having passed correct orders in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner by mis-application of the law in this regard purporting to apply the ratio of the decision of this Court in SMT H.S.LAKSHMAMMA Vs. SRI K.K. AHAMMED KUTTY AND OTHERS reported in 2008(3) KCCR 2114 ; held that the facts of the said case has to be applied to decide the appeals even when that decision has no bearing to the facts of the present cases; that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner be set aside and the orders of the Asst. Commissioner restored. 6. On the other hand, Sri. Prasanna, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has vehemently argued that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner is quite valid in law, in accordance with the statutory provisions; that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly taken note of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act granting an exemption from the applicability of the Act in respect of transfers effected in favour of Government Local Authorities by the grantees; that the auction sale conducted by the Court for the enforcement of the right of the Bank and Canara bank being a Nationalized Bank, is a transaction saved from the applicability of the provisions of the Act and therefore, Section 4 of the Act is not attracted and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly reversed the orders passed by the Asst. Commissioner, and as such no need for interference in the orders impugned and that the writ petitions should be dismissed. 7. Mr. Commissioner, and as such no need for interference in the orders impugned and that the writ petitions should be dismissed. 7. Mr. Prasanna, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the very decision and has contended that saving of the transaction to which are attracted provisions of Section 7 of the Act are transactions which do not come within sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act and as such the judgment in SMT H.S.LAKSHMAMMA Vs. SRI K.K.AHAMMED KUTTY AND OTHERS reported in 2008(3) KCCR 2114 is applicable and therefore, the writ petition be dismissed. It is also submitted by Sri. Prasanna that the applications in the first instance should not have been entertained, as the applications were entertained at a very belated stage in respect of lands which had been transferred to the said Kalleshappa way back in the year 1974 and which had been mortgaged in favour of Canara bank in or around the year 1975 by the said kalleshappa and the Bank itself in the year 1984 having got auctioned the subject land sand the 3rd respondent being a purchaser and being in possession and enjoyment since then, the applications entertained in the year 2007 for passing orders by the Asst. Commissioner in the year 2009 is a very belated auction in law; that the 3rd respondent in fact has acquired rights even by way of adverse possession by long enjoyment and being in uninterrupted possession and therefore, the applications even otherwise deserved to be dismissed. 8. Insofar as the second contention relating to delay and laches is concerned, the argument proceeds on the premise that in respect of transfer effected in favour of Kalleshappa in the year 1975 and consequence thereupon, filing application before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2007 is too belated a claim and the other contention in this aspect is as the third respondent –auction purchaser had purchased the land in court auction held in the year 1985, the application in the year 2007 is again one suffering from the same drawback. 9. It is on such premise even prescriptive right by way of adverse possession is urged. 10. In the first instance, the Act does not prescribe any time limit for making an application before the Assistant Commissioner. 9. It is on such premise even prescriptive right by way of adverse possession is urged. 10. In the first instance, the Act does not prescribe any time limit for making an application before the Assistant Commissioner. On the other hand, it is the responsibility thrust on the Assistant Commissioner even to act suo motu in terms of section 5 of the Act, once the Act came into force from 1.1.1979. If the Assistant Commissioner is taking action belatedly, it is only to the advantage of a purchaser and not to his advantage, as a land which should have been resumed to the State and restored to the legal heirs of the grantee or the grantee as the case may be, has remained in the possession of the purchaser, which is undoubtedly to the advantage of the purchaser and a purchaser cannot complain about the benefit obtained by the inaction of the Assistant Commissioner. 11. Insofar as the contention of adverse possession etc., is concerned, as ruled by the Supreme Court in ‘MANCHE GOWDA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS’ reported in AIR 1984 SC 1151 , a prescriptive right will crystallize if at all, only before the Act came into force and not thereafter. The Act has come into force from 1.1.1979 and transfer of possession by the grantee in favour of said Kalleshappa in the year 1974 i.e., within five years from the date of the Act coming into force cannot confer any right by way of prescription even as against any private person leave alone against the State. The out off date for computation of the period from the date of transaction is 1.1.1979 and thereafter a purchaser remaining in possession does not make any difference for computing the period for the purpose of acquiring right by adverse possession and prescription. Therefore, the contention fails and is rejected. 12. Submission of Sri R.Omkumar, learned AGA is that while the ratio of the decision in SMT.H.S. LAKSHMAMMA Vs. SRI.K.K. AHAMMED KUTTY AND OTHERS reported in 2008(3) KCCR 2114 is not attracted, on the other hand, it is the ration as it emerges in the case of TIPPANNA VS. Therefore, the contention fails and is rejected. 12. Submission of Sri R.Omkumar, learned AGA is that while the ratio of the decision in SMT.H.S. LAKSHMAMMA Vs. SRI.K.K. AHAMMED KUTTY AND OTHERS reported in 2008(3) KCCR 2114 is not attracted, on the other hand, it is the ration as it emerges in the case of TIPPANNA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA DISTRICT reported in 1999(2) KLJ 136 which is applicable; that the Deputy Commissioner failed to see that the transaction by the grantees was not directly with the Bank but it was a transfer in favour of a private person by name Kalleshappa in the first instance, who in turn had mortgaged the subject lands in favour of the Bank, that there was no privity of contract between the Bank and the grantees and therefore, the provisions of Section 7 of the Act is not at all attracted and the facts in the case of TIPPANNA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA DISTRICT reported in 1999(2) KLJ 136 were nearer to the facts in the present case and the ruling in this case is more apt for application and not as in SMT.H.S. LAKSHMAMMA’S case cited above and therefore, submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner appears to be suspect in view of this legal position submits that on the other hand, orders of the Asst. Commissioner is more in consonance with the legal position. 13. I have perused the petition pleadings, statement of objections and the orders passed by the two authorities and considered the submissions made at the Bar. 14. The question that arises for examination in these writ petitions is applicability of Section 7 of the Act or sub-section(3) of section 4 of the Act. 13. I have perused the petition pleadings, statement of objections and the orders passed by the two authorities and considered the submissions made at the Bar. 14. The question that arises for examination in these writ petitions is applicability of Section 7 of the Act or sub-section(3) of section 4 of the Act. Sections 3,4 and 7 reads as under:- “3.Definitions.- (1) In the Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) “bank” means.- (i) a co-operative society (including a co-operative bank); (ii) the Reserve Bank of India constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (iii) a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949; (iv) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; (v) a subsidiary bank as defined in the Stage Bank of India (Subsidiary banks) Act, 1959; (vi) a corresponding new bank, constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970; (vii) the Agricultural Refinance and Development Corporation constituted under the Agricultural Refinance Co-operation Act, 1963; (viii) the Karnataka State Agro Industries Corporation, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956; (ix) the Agricultural Finance Corporation Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956; (x) any other financial institution owned or controlled by the Government or the Central Government and notified by the Government as a bank for the purpose of this Act; (a) “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 imams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word “granted” shall be construed accordingly. (b) “Government” means the Government of Karnataka; (c) “Scheduled Castes” and “Scheduled Tribes” shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Constitution; (d) “transfer” means a sale, gift, exchange, mortgage (with or without possession), lease or any other transaction not being a partition among members of a family or a testamentary disposition and includes the creation of a charge or an agreement to sell, exchange, mortgage or lease or enter into any other transaction. (1) Words and expressions not defined in this Act shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 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. (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. 7. Exemption.- Nothing in this Act shall apply to the transfer of granted lands in favour of the Government, the Central Government, a local authority or a bank either before or after the commencement of this Act. 15. While sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act takes care of the situation whether the granted lands are sold in auction sale, by execution of decree or judgment and award etc., and as rightly submitted by Sri. Prasanna, learned counsel, i.e., a situation more attracted when there is a decree or order in favour of private persons and not when the transaction is in favour of an institution as recorded in Section 7 of the Act. 9. However, the more important question is whether Section 7 of the Act is attracted at all in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. It is not in dispute that the subject lands are granted lands and in fact ample material is also placed before this court by the writ petitioners in terms of Annexures A and B a common grant order granting 3 acres each in favour of five persons but all belonging to scheduled caste community and in darkasth proceedings of Tavarekere Taluk, but also followed-up by issue of saguvali chit thereafter (copies produced as Annexures B and D in favour of writ petitioners 1 and 2 respectively. Therefore, the only question is as to whether the transaction if at all which is in favour of Kalleshappa could be one that can be said to save or attract the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and if so whether Section 7 of the Act is attracted notwithstanding that Mr.Kalleshappa had in turn mortgaged the lands in favour of Canara Bank, who had brought it to auction sale for enforcement of loan in favour of Kalleshappa etc. 17. A perusal of Section 7 of the Act indicates that it is only such transactions or transfers which are effected by the grantees in favour of Central or State Government by local authority or a Bank which are exempted from the applicability of the Act and not transactions which and up with the Government through private transactions effected in the first instance by the grantees in favour of others, but the present transaction is one such and both the writ petitioners parted grants in favour of Kalleshappa. The said Kalleshappa mortgaged the said lands in favour of Canara Bank and for realization of the loan amount, the Bank enforced the security and the subject lands were sold in court auction sale. It so happens that the 3rd respondent is the habitual purchaser who has purchased the lands who has caught fire in the operation of the Act. However, much Sri.Prasanna, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has urged that the 3rd respondent is a bona fide purchase for valuable consideration and under a Court auction sale for the benefit of Canara Bank a Nationalized Bank and therefore the benefit of Section 7 should be extended and the ratio in SMT.H.S. LAKSHMAMMA’s case should be applied to this case also, I am unable to accept this submission for more than one reason. This Court cannot reiterate the statutory provision in the name of interpretation. There is no question of Section 7 of the Act being considered as one applicable to the facts of the present case, even in those transactions cited supra in the first instance between grantee and a private person and later came up with such purchasers and one of the conditions mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. There is no question of Section 7 of the Act being considered as one applicable to the facts of the present case, even in those transactions cited supra in the first instance between grantee and a private person and later came up with such purchasers and one of the conditions mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. Secondly and more importantly even if there is some scope for possibility of the provisions of the Act being of interpretation for saving the auction purchase may be bona fide, but cannot be admitted for the reason the object of the Act is not to save the transaction in favour of a bona fide purchaser but to resume the land to the State and to restore it in favour of the grantee or the legal heirs of the original grantee, if the transactions is in violation of the conditions of the grant. 18. The avowed object of the Act is to ensure that such lands which are granted in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes persons, which they have lost either by ignorance or the over-reaching action methods on the part of other people or others, such lands should be resumed to the State and then to be restored to the grantee or his legal heirs, so that the source of livelihood is again made active and the purpose of the Act is achieved when the avowed object of the legislation is to restore it to the grantee or heirs to achieve the object but not to interpret the provisions in such a way that it is worth at cross purposes with the object of the Act. 19. Moreover Section 7 being a exemption provision in the Act it will have to be strictly construed and any deviation from the letter of the law in the name of interpretation should always be avoided on a proper examination of the transactions, it is very obvious that the provisions of Section 7 of the Act is not attracted; that the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly applied he ratio of SMT.H.S.LAKHSMAMMA’s case cited supra, which is the principle applicable to a situation to which Section 7 of the Act was attracted and therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable. 20. In the result, these petitions are allowed. 20. In the result, these petitions are allowed. The orders at Annexures G and H both dated 7.12.2009 are quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. The orders at Annexures E and F both dated 9.1.2009 passed by the Asst. Commissioner are proper and correct orders and they operate. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. Misc.W.6090/2011 is disposed of, as the petitions are heard on merits of the matter and the writ petitions are allowed.