VENKATASWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THE order dated Nil of the Land tribunal, Honnali, passed in its proceeding no. LRC-11/74-75 (Ex. C.) is being challenged in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of india by one Narayan Rao who was the opponent before the Tribunal in the said proceeding. Thimmappa (second respondent herein) was the applicant before the Tribunal having filed an application in Form No. 7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the Act) claiming occupancy rights in respect of an agricultural land situated in Sy. No. 37 measuring 7 acres 30 guntas of village Balleswara, Honnali taluk. Narayana Rao had contested the claim. By the impugned order the Tribunal has upheld Thimmappa's claim and has directed that he be conferred with occupancy rights over the land in question. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the land in question was Patel Umbli land (Village office Inam ). The said Inam was abolished on the coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act of 1961) and the land was regranted to narayana Rao under S. 5 of the said act ( 3 ) WHILE challenging the validity of the impugned order mainly three grounds were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, he contended that the Tribunal has not held a proper enquiry. Secondly, he contended that since the land has been re-granted in favour of Narayana Rao under the provisions of the Act of 1961, whatever rights Thimmappa may have had in the land had been wiped out, and therefore, he could not claim that he was a tenant entitled to occupancy rights. Lastly, he contended that even otherwise, since ho valid lease could have been cr. eated in respect of village Office Inam, Thimmappa could not be said to have obtained a valid lease from Narayana Rao earlier to the abolition of the village office and cannot therefore be said to be activating the land in question as a lawful tenant and claim occupancy right on that basis under the provision of the Act. ( 4 ) ON the other hand Counsel for the second respondent supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that there were no grounds to interfere with the same. ( 4 ) ON the other hand Counsel for the second respondent supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that there were no grounds to interfere with the same. ( 5 ) ONE other ground, though mentioned in the petition, has not been urged, end, in my opinion, rightly so, by the Counsel for the petitioner. It has teen stated that notice issued by the Tribunal in form No. 9 to Narayana rao was itself contrary to law and the enquiry started on the basis of such a notice was vitiated. However, in view cf the subsequent amendment of the act by Act No. 27 of 1976 this ground does not survive. Not merely form No 9 has been suitably amended, but notices issued in forms No. 8 and 9 have been validated with retrospective effect (S. 6 of the Act No. 27/76 ). ( 6 ) THERE is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since this Patel Umbli land has been regranted to Narayana rao under the provisions of the Act of 1981, Thimmappa, whatever might have been his rights or interests in the laid previously, cannot, subsequent to the regrant in favour of Narayana Rao, claim any tenancy right, and consequently occupancy right under the act. may be noted. "the main object with which the karnataka Village Offices Abolition act was brought into force was to abolish hereditary rights to village offices and the emlouments appertaining to such offices. This Act, unlike other Inams Abolition Acts, does not provide for conferment of ownership or occupancy rights in favour of tenants and other inferior holders. On the other hand, that act envisages the continuation of sucn leases, if any, existing on the date of vesting. The relationship between the regrantees and their tenants would be governed by the existing tenancy laws. The rights of all those lawfully cultivating as tenants under the holder of the village office, the authorised holder, and under certain circumstances, the unauthorised holder, are saved even after the vesting and re-granting of those lands under Sections 5, 6 or 7 of the village Offices Abolition Act. The relationship of such lessees and their landlords would be governed by the existing tenancy laws. The relationship of such lessees and their landlords would be governed by the existing tenancy laws. Hence, the rights of such persons are required to be worked out under the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1961"if viewed in this light it has to be stated that if Thimmappa was a lessee lawfully cultivating the land in question under Narayana Rao prior to the abolition of the Inam in question and if he had continued to cultivate the land as on 1. 3. 1974, he was entitled to claim occupancy rights under the provisions of the Act. ( 7 ) ALSO, there is no force in the further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Thimmappa cannot claim occupancy rights on the ground that he was a lawfully cultivating tenant in view of the fact that creation of leases in respect of Patel Umbli lands had been prohibited under the Mysore village Offices Act of 1908. Though the facts placed indicate of Thimmappa having cultivated the land under narayana Rao for many years, (to which reference would be made presently) there is no record to show that any permanent lease had been created in his favour. In this connection the following observations of his Lordship the Chief Justice in may be noted:"sec. 5 of the Mysore Village offices Act, 1908 did not prohibit leases of service inam lands, when such lease was neither permanent nor for a long period. A lease which is neither permanent nor for a long period is not a 'transfer' which is prohibited by Section 5. The word 'transfer' is not defined in the Village Offices Act. Though s. 5 T. P. Act defines 'transfer of property,' that definition is for the purpose of that Act and cannot be imported for interpreting the same word in the Mysore Village Offices act. In the absence of a definition of the word 'transfer', that word should be understood according to its ordinary meaning. In ordinary usage, a sale or a gift of a property is understood as a transfer of the property lease of property being one of the ordinary modes of enjoying that property by its owner, is not understood in common parlance as a transfer of that property. Sec. 8 of the Karnataka Village offices Abolition Act, 1961 extends the protection of the tenancy laws to tenants of service inam lands. Sec. 8 of the Karnataka Village offices Abolition Act, 1961 extends the protection of the tenancy laws to tenants of service inam lands. Unless lease of service inam lands was lawful, Sec. 8 would not have provided for giving protection to tenants of such lands. Sec. 8 cf the Abolition Act is not confined to leases which are saved by the proviso to Sec. 5 of the village Offices Act namely leases between members of the hakdar's family. "creation of a permanent lease or creation of a lease for a long period, as observed above, may amount to 'transfer' as contemplated under Sec. 5 Mysore Village Offices Abolition, Act, 1908. In the instant case, as already stated, there is nothing on record to show that this was a permanent lease. There are also no materials to hold that when Narayana Rao inducted thimmappa as a lessee into the land he had done so for any specified long period. Merely because Thimmappa had been cultivating as an yearly tenant over a long number of years that will not make that lease as one created 'for a long period' at its very inception. Thimmappa, who had been inducted into the land as an yearly tenant, has continued to cultivate as a tenant holding over and of course could rot have been evicted after he got statutory protection from the various enactments governing agrarian relations'. In the circumstances the benefits accruing to a lessee under the provisions of the Act cannot be denied to Thimmappa. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal has taken considerable pains and has considered all aspects of the case in the light of the rival contentions of the parties. Parties were provided with full opportunity to place their points of view and each one of the contentions raised by the land-holder has been well considered. There is no merit in the contention that the Tribunal has not held a proper enquiry. It appears that. Narayana Rao had taken steps against Thimmappa during the year 1960 for recovery of rents, and, in fact had obtained decrees against him. It is stated that he had applied for resumption of the land from Thimmaapa under the provisions of the Act (as they stood then) during the year 1965. He was not successful. It appears that. Narayana Rao had taken steps against Thimmappa during the year 1960 for recovery of rents, and, in fact had obtained decrees against him. It is stated that he had applied for resumption of the land from Thimmaapa under the provisions of the Act (as they stood then) during the year 1965. He was not successful. All these aspects have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while holding, on facts, that Thimmappa was validly cultivating the land at the relevant time as a lessee under Narayana Rao. Its finding that Thimmappa was entitled to conferment of occupancy rights re : the land in question cannot, in the circumstances, be challenged. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, the writ petition is dismissed and the rule issued is discharged. ( 10 ) PARTIES to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .