NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THESE two matters are taken together because they relate to disputes between the same parties about the same property and for a convenient disposal the Second Appeal has been referred to a Division Bench to be heard along with the Writ Petition. ( 2 ) THE facts in respect of which there is no dispute at present, are briefly the following: The lands bearing Resurvey No. 517/1, 2 and 3 of ron Village of Dharwar District were originaly Kulkarnike watan lands granted in favour of the ancestors of the watandar Kulkarni. It appears that years ago these lands were put in possession of the petitioners, to whom we shall refer as Joshis as part of an arrangement under which the joshis were to perform the worship of the family deity of Kulkarni. According to the case put forward on behalf of the Joshis, what they call a gift or 'dana' of these lands must have taken place prior to 1870-71 and they had also dealt with the lands in a partition in their family. ( 3 ) ON 1st May 1951, the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1050, came into force. Pursuant thereto, Kulkarnis applied to the Assistant Commissioner of the locality for regrant of the lands under S. 4 thereof on 25th May 1053, after paying into treasury the occupancy price as determined by the section. The Joshis opposed the grant on the ground that grant should be made in their favour because of the more than 100 years, of possession claimed by them. The Assistant commissioner passed an order on 16th December 1954 rejecting the application of the Kulkarni, taking the view that his rights in the land have been destroyed by the adverse possession of the Joshis. ( 4 ) UPON appeal by the Kulkarni, the Deputy Commissioner made an order of regrant in his favour on 25th October "l956, with a condition that the same should be subject to the rights of Joshis under the alienation. ( 5 ) BOTH the parties were dissatisfied with this order and both of them appealed to the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner rejected the contention of Joshis of their having acquired any right, in, or title to, the property and made an unconditional regrant in favour of Kulkarni on 16th July 1957. ( 5 ) BOTH the parties were dissatisfied with this order and both of them appealed to the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner rejected the contention of Joshis of their having acquired any right, in, or title to, the property and made an unconditional regrant in favour of Kulkarni on 16th July 1957. ( 6 ) THE Revision Petition presented to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal was in the first instance dismissed as incompetent but was heard on merits after an order of remand made by this Court in WP. No. 1050 of 1961. The order made after remand on 31st January 1964 on the merits of the case confirming the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 16th July 1957 is assailed in the present Writ Petition 1270 of 1964. ( 7 ) AFTER the Divisional Commissioner's order in his favour, Kulkarni filed Spl. C. S. 18 of 1959 before the Civil Judge, S. D. , Dharwar, for recovery of possession of the lands from Joshis. The said suit was decreed in his favour on 28th February 1961, and the same was confirmed upon appeal by the District Judge of Dharwar in CA. 81 of 1965 on 19th October 19c7. The present RSA is directed against the said appellate decree of the District Judge. ( 8 ) THAT the lands in question were Kulkarni watan lands liable for resumption under the Abolition Act of 1950 is no longer in dispute. 81 of 1965 on 19th October 19c7. The present RSA is directed against the said appellate decree of the District Judge. ( 8 ) THAT the lands in question were Kulkarni watan lands liable for resumption under the Abolition Act of 1950 is no longer in dispute. The resumption is pursuant to S 3 of the Act which reads as follows:"with effect from and or, the appointed day, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, usage, settlement, grant, sanad or order- (1) all Paragana and Kulkarni watans shall be deemed to have been abolished; (2) all rights to hold office and any liability to render service appertaining to the said watans are hereby extinguished, (3) subject to the provisions of S. 4 all watan land is hereby resumed and shall be deemed to be subject to the payment of land revenue under the provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder as if it were an unalienated land: provided that such resumption shall not affect the validity of any alienation of such watan land made in accordance with the provisions of S. 5 of the Watan Act or the rights of an alienee thereof or any person claiming under or through him; (4) all incidents appertaining to the said watans are hereby extinguished. " ( 9 ) THE clearest effect of this section is that all rights existing in respect of watan and watan lands are totally abolished and the watan lands which had originally been granted by the Sovereign Government are resumed back to Government All that is saved is the validity of any alienation of such watan land made in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Watan Act. ( 10 ) THE Watan Act is the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874. Under S. 5 thereof, without the sanction of the State Government, it is nci competent to a watandar or to a representative watandar to mortgage, charge, alienate or lease for a period beyond the term of his natural life, any watan, or any part thereof or any interest therein, to or for the benefit of any person who is not a watandar oi the same watan. ( 11 ) THE expression used in the section is 'watan' which is large enough to comprehend watan property and all rights in respect of watan including watan land Hence, unless the previous sanction of the State government had been secured for the alleged 'dana' or gift to Joshis by the ancestors of Kulkarni, the alienation was not one in accordance with the provisions of S. 5 of the Watan Act. The judgments in second appeal show that it was admitted that no such sanction had been secured. Such an admission had necessarily to be made, because the case of Joshis is that the alienation in their favour was much prior to the coming into force of the Watan Act itself. ( 12 ) HENCE, it is clear that the alienation claimed, on the strength of which Joshis claimed the right to remain in possession of the lands, is an alienation not protected by the previous sanction under S. 5. If so, it is not. an alienation which comes under the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of s. 3 of the Abolition Act. ( 13 ) IT has, however, been contended on behalf of Joshis that the 3rd section of the Abolition Act purports to destroy only the rights and interests of a watandar and not of any person other than a watandar or any right which a person other than a watandar might have acquired in respect of the land. We do not think that such a construction is possible in the circumstances, or acceptable on the language of the section. It should be remembered that the watan property was originally Government property and the subject of discretionary grant made by the Government in the exercise of its sovereign powers. The tenure acquired by the grantee under such a grant was purely a precarious tenure depending entirely upon the pleasure of the sovereign. It is for that reason that the supreme Court observes in Collector of South Satara v. Laxman Mahadev deshpande, AIR 1964 SC 326 , that it is open to Government without any statute to resume lands without having to pay any compensation and that because the sovereign Government has chosen to exercise the power of resumption through the instrumentality of statute, the rights of parties are protected by the provisions made in the statute. ( 14 ) SUCH being the clear legal effect of what is described as the resumption of a watan, we do not think that it is open for any person in the position of Joshis in these cases to claim the right of holding the lands despite or in opposition to the Government's right of resumption. ( 15 ) ANOTHER line of argument in support of Joshis' claim is that they may be regarded as holders within the meaning of sub-sec. (1) of S. 4 of the Abolition Act, entitled to regrant of the lands under the said section. The expression used in that section is net 'holder of the land' but 'holder of the watan'. The watan, as already stated, is an expression having an extensive meaning according to the definition contained in the Watan Act. ( 16 ) THE argument that the right of possession which he had acquired under the grant cannot be deprived or taken away by the Kulkarnis because as between the Kulkarnis and Joshis there was a grant or gift, cannot be availed of for the same reason, viz. , that resumption by the government destroyed all the rights Tf this argument has to be accepted, it would be adding something to the proviso appended to sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Abolition Act by extending the protection thereunder to alienations other than those strictly falling wihin its scope ( 17 ) THE Courts therefore are right in holding that on account of the resumption it is no longer open to Joshis to retain possession and that but for the resumption it would not have been possible for the Kulkarni to recover possession. Hence, both the Writ Petition as well as the second appeal have to be and are hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .