(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dated 6-4-1984 and 20-6-1986 passed by respondents 2 and 3 produced as Annexures ,C' and ,D' respectively. The land in question is S. No. 99 measuring 2 acres of Thirumalahalli village, Maasti Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. This was granted to the grand-father of the 4th respondent on 10-4-1956. It is not in dispute that the grand-father of the 4th respondent was a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. After the grant, the grand-father of the 4th respondent sold the land in question on 1.4-1963 to one Sri Erappa who in turn sold the land in question on 9-9-1971 in favour of one Smt. Venkatamma who in turn sold it in favour of one Sri Kanagala Muniswamy under the Sale-deed dated 9-9-1371. From Kanagala Muniswamy, the petitioner has purchased the land in question under a registered Sale-deed dated 8-5-1980.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as amended by Karnataka Act No. 13/1978 came into force on 1-1-1979 and on the date of coming into force of the Act, the predecessor in title of the petitioner had perfected his title by adverse possession. Therefore, it is contended, the respondents 2 and 3 have acted illegally in setting aside the alienation and regranting the land in question in favour of 4th respondent.
(3.) There is no doubt that by the time the Act came into force, the alienees had been in continuous possession for over a period of 12 years. But this period is not sufficient to declare that the title had been perfected by adverse possession against the State on or before the Act came in to force. The prescriptive period of adverse possession as against the Slate is 30 years. In Sunkara Rajyalakshmi & others, v State of Kama- taka (1985 (1) Scale 445) the Supreme Court has held that the Act