Judgment :- 1. The concept of upset price constitutes the full market value and therefore attracting the provisions of section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thereby avoiding the provisions of section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short ‘the Act’] and even in terms of some decided cases of this court has caused considerable confusion about this concept of upset price and therefore Sri. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner who is the purchaser of granted land under four sale deeds each in respect of land measuring an extent of 1 acre which had been originally granted in favour of person belonging to scheduled caste community under two sale transactions dated 16.10.1995 & other two sale deeds dated 25.03.1996 is relying upon following the decisions of this court in the case of ‘KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKMAGALUR AND OTHERS’ reported in2002 (5) KLJ 248 and‘BIJU RAMESH AND OTHERS vs. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE AND OTHERS’ reported in2002 (6) KLJ 91 to submit that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in rejecting the order passed by the Assistant commissioner is bad in law as it is contrary to law as noticed by this court on the aspect of applicability or otherwise of the provisions of section 4 of the Act in respect of land granted on collecting upset price. 2. Submission of Sri. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present lands are granted on collecting upset price of Rs. 60/- in respect of 4 acres of land and therefore the provisions of the Act is not attracted; that the grantee does not belong to the scheduled caste community and at any rate no material was placed before the authority to this effect etc. 3. On the other hand, Sri. 60/- in respect of 4 acres of land and therefore the provisions of the Act is not attracted; that the grantee does not belong to the scheduled caste community and at any rate no material was placed before the authority to this effect etc. 3. On the other hand, Sri. R. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 & 2 submits that the condition is of no consequence as section 4(2) of the Act operates in the present case and the sale transactions being admittedly after the Act coming into force and being not accompanied by prior permission of the State Government; that insofar as the concept of definition of granted land under the Act is concerned, it does include even the land granted on collecting upset price; that assuming that section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 operates also, transaction inevitably gets voided in view of the provisions of section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as the moment there is violation of the condition, the provisions of section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 come into picture and all other consequences have to yield to the operation of Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 4. The decisions referred to and relied upon by Sri Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be good law any more in the wake of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘SIDDEGOWDA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS’ reported in AIR 2003 SC 1290 . The concept of upset price is very clearly mentioned here and unless it is proved that the upset price was on par with the actual market price at the time of the grant, the provisions of section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 can never be said to be attracted. 5. These aspects apart, in fact, collection of Rs. 60/- for 4 acres and being at the rate of Rs. 15/- per acre is out is not any part of the upset price but is only phoding charges for measurement and sub-dividing the survey numbers and that is not even any upset price in the present case. 6. Sri. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that so long as writ petition is dismissed, he is content and he does not press for any further relief. 7. 6. Sri. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that so long as writ petition is dismissed, he is content and he does not press for any further relief. 7. Whether fourth respondent presses for any relief or otherwise, this is not a proceeding wherein relief can be extended to the fourth respondent, but the fourth respondent at the best can make use of his presence only to support the order and for dismissal of the writ petition with which position Sri. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the fourth respondent has no quarrel. 8. There is absolutely no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. No merit in the writ petition. No need for interference with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.