( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Karwar, in CA. 71 of 1965 reversing the decree, passed by the Addl Munsiff, Sirsi, in OS. 150 of 1961. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit in the year 1961 for a declaration of his title in respect of half a share in S. No. 112 of Ullal village and for partition and possession of the same. One Krishna Vithal Velgekar had title in respect of half the suit land, who by the sale deed Ex. 51 d/. 3-8-1949 conveyed his interest in favour of the plaintiff. It appears that on the date of the said sale deed there wer'e two protected tenants on the land namely, Timma Masti Naik and Timma Chalya Naik. The name of the plaintiff was entered in tha record of rights as owner. On 6-8-1955 the said entry was cancelled in accordance with the order passed by the Tahsildar in RTS proceedings. Such action was taken on the ground that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was void, the same having been effected in contravention of S. 6-1 of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). S. 64 of the Act, as it then stood, required the landlord to offer the land for sale to the tenant in actual possession of the land in the first instance. Any sale effected without making such an offer to the tenant in possession would be void under sub-sec (3) of S. 64 of the Act, as it then stood. As there were two tenants on the land, the Tahsildar in the course of RTS proceedings held that the sale is void and that therefore, the name of the plaintiff cannot be entered as Kabjedar or owner. Krishna Vithal Velgekar in the meanwhile purchased the remaining half of the suit land from his son. As the sale of half the suit land in favour of the plaintiff was void, krishna Vithal Velgekar proceeded on the basis that he continued to have valid title in respect of half the suit land, which w?,s sought to be conveyed to the plaintiff under the sale deed Ex. 51. As already mentioned he had purchased the remaining half of the suit land from his son. 51. As already mentioned he had purchased the remaining half of the suit land from his son. Thus, krishna Vithal Velgekar became entitled to the entire suit land. It is on this basis that Krishna Vithal Velgekar sold the entire land to the defendant on 18-8-1955 under the registered sale deed Ex. 56. The sale deed recites that the defendant was already in possession as a chalgeni tenant. It has to be mentioned that the names of two projected tenants were deleted some time in the year 1955 on the, ground that they had deserted from the land for more than two years thereby forefeiting their rights of tenancy. After the defendant purchased the entire suit land under Ex. 56, certain proceedings were initiated under S. 84a of the, Act, which provision came to be added by the Amending Act 13 of 1956, which came imoforce on 1-8-1956. The said provision empowered the Tahsildar to validate the sales effected in contravention of Ss. 63 and 64 of the Act between 28-12- 1948 and 15-6-1955 provided certain conditions specified therein are, satisfied. The vendor Krishna Vithal Yelgekar, was the only person who was impleaded as opponent in the said proceedings. The Tahsildar by his order d/. 23-12-1957 Rejected the application of the plaintiff for validation of his sale evidenced by Ex. 51. On appeal against the said order, the Assistant commr made the order d/. 30-6-1960 validating the sale in favour of the plaintiff. It is thus that the plaintiff claims that he has title in respect of half the suit land purchased by him from Krishna, Vithal Velgekar under ex. 51 on 3-8-49 and validated by the order of the Asst Commr d/. 30-6-60 ( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the Defendant on various grounds. It was the case of the defendant that the order of validtion is not a valid order, as the same was not made after notice to the defendant. It was also contended that as the sale in favour of the plaintiff was declared invalid by the Tahsildar, the provisions of S. 84a of the Act for validation could not bo invoked in the present case after the Tahsildar had declared that the sale in favour of the plaintiff is invalid. The defendant took the stand that he was the tenant of the suit land when he purchased the same under ex. The defendant took the stand that he was the tenant of the suit land when he purchased the same under ex. 56 and that therefore, the sale in his favour is valid and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree in his favour He also contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief to the plaintiff. ( 4 ) S. 64 of the Act, before its amendment by the Act 13 of 1956. read as follows :" (1) Where a landlord intends to sell any land, he shall apply to the Tribunal for determining the reasonable price. In determining the reasonable price,, the Tribunal shall take into consideration the factors to be taken into consideration in fixing the reasonable rent under Section 12. (2) After the Tribunal has determined the reasonable price, the landlord shall make an offer in the prescribed form to persons in the following order of priority; provided that the person to whom the offer has been made has failed to pay to him the amount of the reasonable price as determined by the Tribunal or to deposit the same with the Tribunal within two months from the date on which the offer is communicated to such person. The order of priority shall be as follows : - a. In the case of agricultural land other than dwelling house, the sits thereof and land appurtenant to such house when such site or dwelling house or land is not used or is not necessary to carry on agricultural operations in the adjoining lands- (i) the tenant in actual possession of the land, (ii) the person or persons personally cultivating any land adjacent to the land to be sold; (iii) a co-operative fanning society; (iv) any other agriculturist; (v) any other person who has obtained from the Collector a certificate that he intends to take the profession of Agriculturist. (3) Any sale made in contravention of this section shall be void. "as there were two protected tenants referred to above on the date of the sale in favour of the plaintiff and as the land was not offered for sale to those protected tenants by the landlord Krishna Vithal Velgekar, the sale was void u|s. 64 of the Act, as it then stood. "as there were two protected tenants referred to above on the date of the sale in favour of the plaintiff and as the land was not offered for sale to those protected tenants by the landlord Krishna Vithal Velgekar, the sale was void u|s. 64 of the Act, as it then stood. It is precisely for this reason, in the RTS proceedings the Tahsdldar took the view that the sale was void, and, therefore, the entry of the plaintiff's name in the record of rights as owner is not legal. It is no doubt true that the order was not made by the Tahslidar functioning under the Act, but the said order was made by him under the povisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in connection with the making of entries in the record of rights. That order will not, therefore, have the force of any adjudication made under the provisions of the Act. But, sub-sec (3)of S. 64 of the Act as it then stood, provides that any sale made in contravention of S. 64 is void. It is, therefore clear that any sale made in contravention of S. 64 is void ab initio. It is precisely because of this legal position that the plaintiff felt the necessity of getting the sale validated. It is necessary to mention that until the Act was amended by Act 13 of 1956, there was no provision for validation of such sales. It is only by the amending Act 13 of 1956 that section 84a and similar provisions were added empowering the specified authorities under the Act to validate the invalid sales under the Act. S. 84a of the Act, which came into force on 1-8-1956, was added to the act by Act 13 of 1956, and reads as follows:" (1) A transfer of any land in contravention of S. 63 or 64 as it stood before the commencement of the Amending Act, 1955, made after the 28th day of December 1948 (when the BT and AL Act, 1948, came into force) and before the 15lh of June 1955 shall not be declared to be invalid merely on the ground that such transfer was me. de in contravention of the said section if the transferee pays to the State Govt a penalty equal to five per cent of the consideration or Rs. de in contravention of the said section if the transferee pays to the State Govt a penalty equal to five per cent of the consideration or Rs. 100, which ever is less: provided that, if such transfer is made by the landlord in favour of the tenant in actual possession, the penalty leviable in respect thereof shall be one rupee, provided further that if any such transfer is made by the landlord in favour of any person other than the tenant in actual possession, and such transfer is made either after the unlawful eviction of such tenant, or results in the eviction of the tenant in actual possession, then such transfer shall not be deemed to be validated. (2) On payment of such penalty, the Mamlatdar shall issue a certificate to the transferee that such transfer is not invalid. " ( 5 ) THIS provision undoubtedly enabled the plaintiff to move the tahsildar for validation of his sale evidenced by Ex. 51, which was admittedly effected in contravention of S. 64 of the Act. The learned Civil Judge has taken the view that in the RTS proceedings the Tahsildar has already held that the sale in favour of the plaintiff is void and the said adjudication made by the Tahsildar precludes the Tahsildar from the validating the sale in exercise of the powers conferred on him by S. 84a of the Act. For this view, the learned Civil Judge has relied upon the decision of the Supreme court in Bai Achhuba Amar Singh v. Kalidas Harnath Ojha AIR. 1967 SC. 651. In that case when dispossession took plaice on the strength of a sate, (transaction effected in contravention of S. 64 of the Act, proceedings were initiated under S. 84 of the Act, which empowers the Deputy Commr to summarily avict, any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land, the transfer or acquisition of which either by the act of parties or by the operation of law is invalid under the provisions of the Act. In the proceedings under S. 84 of the Act, the sale was held to be invalid. It is thereafter that proceedings were taken under 9. 84a of the Act for validating the very same sale transaction. In the proceedings under S. 84 of the Act, the sale was held to be invalid. It is thereafter that proceedings were taken under 9. 84a of the Act for validating the very same sale transaction. The Supreme Court pointed out that after a competent authority under the Act declared that a transaction is invalid as offending S. 64, the Tahsildar cannot under S. 84a of the Act, validate the sale. This decision as rightly pointed out by Sri A. C. Nanjappa, lesjrned Counsel appearing for tha appellants, does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, there is no order made by any competent authority under tha Act declaring that the transaction evidenced by Ex. 51 is void or invalid under S. 64 of the Act. As already mentioned, the order of the Tahsildar d. 6-8-1955 was not made by him in any proceedings taken under the Act or in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Act. It is in the course of the proceedings pertaining to making of entries in the record of rights under the provisions of the bombay Lad Revenue Code that the Tahsildar held that the sale is void under S. 64 of the Act. As the order of the Tahsildar was not made under the Act, it is not possible to agree with the view taken by the learned Civil judge that the Tahsildar was precluded from exercising the powers conferred under S. 84a of the Act. ( 6 ) BUT, it was maintained by Sri B. V. Krishnaswamy Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that tha order of the Asst Commr d. 30-6-1960 validating the sale in favour of the plaintiff is void and not binding on the defendant, as tha same was passed behind the back of the defendant and in violation of the principles of natural justice, It is no doubt true that S. 84a does not in express terms raquire, the Tahsildar to notify the persons who are likely to be affected by the order of validation. S. 84a of the Act confers powers of a very wide character. It entitles the Tahsildar to validate a sale which is invalid having been made, in contravention of S. 63 or void as having baen made in contravention of S. 64. S. 84a of the Act confers powers of a very wide character. It entitles the Tahsildar to validate a sale which is invalid having been made, in contravention of S. 63 or void as having baen made in contravention of S. 64. Second proviso to sub-sec (1) of Sec. 34a of the Act makes is clear that if the transfer is made by the landlord in favour of any person other than the tenant in actual possession and such transfer is made either after the unlawful eviction of such tenant or results in the eviction of the tenant in actual possession, then such transfer shall not bo deemed to be validated. It is, therefore, clear that certain rights have been conferred on the tenant and that no validation can be made so as to deprive the rights of a tenant, which have been protected by the prqviso to S. 84a of the Act. Though S. 84 of the Act does not in terms require the tenant in actual possession or tenant dispossessed as a result of sale, to be heard, I am clearly of opinion that the principles of natural justice require that such person should be heard before any order is made validating the sale under s. 84a of the Act. Rules of natural justice require that before any order is made adversely affecting the rights of any person that he should be given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed. If before proceedings under S. 84a of the Act for validation are initiated, the original vendor sells the property to a third person on the basis that the earlier sale is void as offending S. 64 of the Act, no valid order could be passed by the Tahsildar under S. 84a of the Act without giving an opportunity to the subsequent transferee of showing cause es to why the earlier sale transaction should not be validated. It has to be pointed out that in such circumstances the validation of the first sale necessarily results in the invalidation of the subsequent sale. Such valuable rights vested in the subsequent purchaser cannot be adversely affected without giving him an opportunity of showing cause. It has to be pointed out that in such circumstances the validation of the first sale necessarily results in the invalidation of the subsequent sale. Such valuable rights vested in the subsequent purchaser cannot be adversely affected without giving him an opportunity of showing cause. ( 7 ) IN the present case, the defendant who was a subsequent purchases under the sale deed d. 18-8-1955, was next made a parity to the prodeedings initiated by the plaintiff under S. 84a of the Act, even though he knew fully well that his own vendor had sold the suit land to the defendant under the sale deed d. 18-8-1955. That is clear from the order of the tahsildar made on an application of the plaintiff under S. 84a of the Act. The Tahsildar also did not notify the defendant before making the final order. The appellate authority namely, the Asst Commr, also did not notify the defendant before validating the sale in favour of the plaintiff. As the order of validation mads by the Asst Commr on 30-6-1960 in favour of the plaintiff had the direct effect of nullifying the sale in favour of the defendant, it could not have been made without giving an opportunity to the defendant of showing cause as to why the sale transaction in favour of the plaintiff should not be validated under 9. 84a of the Act. As the asst Commr has made the said order in violation of principles of natural justice, the said order is void and ndt binding on the Defendant. If that order is void and not binding on the defendant, it follows that there is no valid validation of the sale in favour of the plaintiff evidenced by ex. 51. Admittedly, the said sale transaction is void as the same has been effected in contravention of S. 64 of the Act. Hence, it follows that the plaintiff has acquired no valid title to half the land under Ex. 51 d. 3-8-49 executed by Krishna Vithal Velgekar in favour of the plaintiff. ( 8 ) I agree with the ultimate conclusion of the learned Civil Judge for the aforesaid reasons and not for the reasons assigned by him. ( 9 ) FOR the, reasons stated above, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .