ORDER 1. Petitioners are calling in question the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.1 herein dismissing the appeal filed under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the Act’) thereby confirming the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Sub Division, Shimoga, directing resumption and restoration of land in favour of the grantee. Impugned orders are produced at Annexures E & F. 2. Lease in respect of land bearing Sy.No.39/20 measuring 2 acres situated at Balemaranahalli Village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District was granted in favour of the husband of the 3rd respondent by name Thimmabhovi temporarily for a period of five years on 08.08.1959 by the revenue authorities. After expiry of said five years, the lease came to be confirmed on 21.12.1963 by issuing a permanent Grant Certificate. 3. Husband of the 3rd respondent sold this land in favour of one Thippaiah by executing a registered Sale Deed dated 16.01.1964. The said Thippaiah in turn sold the property in favour of the husband of the 1st petitioner by name Doddegowda under a registered Sale Deed dated 05.05.1966. On a report submitted by the Tahsildar, Shimoga, proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4(i) of the Act. 4. It is not necessary to refer to the previous proceedings as the Assistant Commissioner has now passed an order at Annexure D after remand holding that the land was a granted land and the first alienation made in favour of Thippaiah was in violation of the Rules in existence regulating the grant. He has recorded a finding that the land was earlier granted on lease basis for a term of five years vide order dated 08.08.1959. Thereafter, in terms of the order dated 21.12.1963 right has been conferred by issuing permanent grant certificate in favour of the husband of the 3rd respondent by collecting a sum of Rs.200/and a Saguvali Chit was granted on 21.12.1963. He has further found that as per condition No.7 of the Saguvali Chit, the existing conditions for grant would be applicable to the said grant as well. He has further found that as per condition No.7 of the Saguvali Chit, the existing conditions for grant would be applicable to the said grant as well. Having regard to the conditions, particularly condition No.7 in the Saguvali Chit, he came to the conclusion that the sale made within a period of less than one month from the date of grant was hit by the existing conditions regarding non-alienation of the granted land and therefore, the alienation attracted provisions contained under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act. This order was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the same. In this background, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contends that the grant was made under Rule 43J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 (for short, ‘the Rules’). It was an absolute grant without containing any restriction, let alone imposing restriction for non-alienation for any duration and therefore, it cannot be said that there was violation of the provisions of the Act. His next contention is that the grant made by collecting a sum of Rs.200/did reflect the market value and therefore, unless a finding was recorded holding that the land was sold free of costs or at a reduced cost, conclusion reached by the authorities cannot be sustained in law. It is also contended by him that no enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner by providing an opportunity to lead evidence and therefore, on that ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He has lastly contended that petitioner had perfected his title by adverse possession by being in possession continuously for a period of more than 12 years because petitioner and his vendor enjoyed the property thereby perfecting title by adverse possession. 6. In support of the contention that for grants made under Rule 43J of the Rules condition of nonalienation cannot be imposed, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GUNTAIAH AND OTHERS Vs. HAMBAMMA AND OTHERS – 2005 (5) KAR.L.J. 304. In support of the contention that petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of K.T.HUCHEGOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ILR 1994 KAR 1839. 7. HAMBAMMA AND OTHERS – 2005 (5) KAR.L.J. 304. In support of the contention that petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of K.T.HUCHEGOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ILR 1994 KAR 1839. 7. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent – grantee strongly supports the concurrent findings recorded by both the authorities. He submits that even as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Guntaiah’s case grants made under Rule 43J of the Rules cannot be termed as absolute grant because the grant was not made for market value, but was made for a reduced price at Rs.200/per acre. It is his submission that immediately after the grant and within a matter of 30 days, the grantee has sold the land in favour of one Thippaiah for a sum of Rs.1,000/which itself disclosed that the grant made for a sum of Rs.200/was not for market value, but was for a reduced price. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate strongly supports the findings recorded by both the authorities and urges that petitioner has not taken up any contention before the authorities regarding the stand now taken stating that amount of Rs.200/paid to the Government reflected the full market value of the land. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the questions that arise for consideration are 1) Whether the grant of land made under Rule 43J of the Rules was an absolute grant not amenable for any condition regarding non-alienation as per the Rules in existence at the time of grant? 2) Whether the petitioner has perfected title by adverse possession? 3) Whether the findings recorded by both the authorities are otherwise vitiated? 4) Whether the enquiry conducted is in accordance with the principles of natural justice? 10. The Apex Court in the judgment in Guntaiah’s case in paragraph 6 has referred to the provisions contained under Rule 43G of the Rules pertaining to grant of lands subject to certain conditions as envisaged therein and also to Rule 43J pertaining to grant of land to persons to whom lands have been leased temporarily. 10. The Apex Court in the judgment in Guntaiah’s case in paragraph 6 has referred to the provisions contained under Rule 43G of the Rules pertaining to grant of lands subject to certain conditions as envisaged therein and also to Rule 43J pertaining to grant of land to persons to whom lands have been leased temporarily. After extensively dealing with the same, in paragraph 11, the Apex Court has observed as under: “When the rule itself says that where the grant is made free of cost or at a price which is less than the full market value, such grant shall be subject to the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land after the grant, such conditions could be imposed on any grant made to the party.” 11. No doubt the grant in the instant case, though made under Rule 43J of the Rules imposed certain conditions regarding non-alienation. Mere fact that no such condition is imposed may not tantamount to saying that it is an absolute grant without any condition. But, it is not necessary to express any final view on this aspect as, in the present case, condition No.7 of the grant expressly makes applicable the existing conditions of grant, which meant non-alienation for 15 years was applicable. Then, the only question that remains to be answered is whether the grant is made for less than upset price or free of cost. There is no finding of the authorities in this regard because the petitioners have not taken up any such specific contention stating that Rs.200/paid by the grantee reflected the market value and that the grant was for a market value. 12. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate the burden being on the petitioners it was for them to take up necessary defence in that regard. 13. It is also relevant to point out that a sum of Rs.200/has been collected towards the value of the land, whereas, within a matter of 30 days from the date of grant, the grantee has sold this property for Rs.1000/. Therefore, it was obvious that grant was not made for market value. 14. 13. It is also relevant to point out that a sum of Rs.200/has been collected towards the value of the land, whereas, within a matter of 30 days from the date of grant, the grantee has sold this property for Rs.1000/. Therefore, it was obvious that grant was not made for market value. 14. As regards adverse possession pleaded, once it is held that grant was not an absolute grant made for consideration reflecting the market value, the Government continues to be the owner and the conditions which can be imposed under Rule 43G have to be read in. If that is so the period prescribed for perfecting title by adverse possession against the Government would be 30 years and not 12 years. Therefore, even the judgment in Huchegowda’s case referred to above will not come to the aid of the petitioners. In these circumstances, having regard to the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 15. It is submitted that there is existing areca nut crop in the land in question which has been grown by investing substantial amount by the petitioners. The authorities are, therefore, directed to allow the petitioners to harvest the crop and give maximum of three months time to remove the existing crop in the land and handover possession of the same to the authorities.