P.N. Bhagwati, J:

1. The case of the petitioners in this review petition is this that the transfers of land effected in their favour or in favour of their transferors by the original grantees were subsequent to the expiration of the period of prohibition against alienation provided in the grants and these transfers do not therefore stand invalidated even according to the judgment given by us on 17-4-1984, Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka, (1984) 3 SCC 301 [LQ/SC/1984/109] . This case was put forward by the petitioners in the original writ petition filed in the High Court. But a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeal preferred from the judgment of the learned Single Judge was also rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court. Since we have taken the view that if any alienation or transfer is made by the grantee of the land subsequent to the expiration of the period of prohibition, it would not be affected by the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, it is necessary that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners involving the determination of this question of fact should be decided in the writ petition. We would, therefore, set aside the order made by us dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners as also the orders of dismissal passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and remand the writ petition to the learned Single Judge of the High Court so that he may dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the law as laid down by us in our judgment dated 17-4-19841.

2. We may also make it clear that so far as the second exception laid down by us in our judgment dated 17-4-19841 is concerned, namely, that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 will not apply where the transferees have perfected their title in the granted land by prescription of long and continuous enjoyment before the commencement of the, the period of limitation which has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the title has been perfected by prescription is that which runs against the State Government and therefore it would be thirty years and not twelve years.