RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants have presented this appeal against the order of the learned single Judge who dismissed their writ petition in which they had challenged the legality of the order of the Land Tribunal, jamkhandi, by which occupancy rights in respect of certain lands had been granted in favour of respondent-2. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised by the appellants in this appeal it is necessary to set out the facts of the case and in particular the previous orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. They are as follows : - the proceedings concern 12 acres and 4 guntas of land situate in Savalgi village, Jamkhandi taluk, Bijapur Dist. This land along with other lands had been given to one Rangubai belonging to the family of the appellants for maintenance by a maintenance Deed dated 25th September 1923. There was a specific direction in the Deed that the land was regranted to the family of the donors immediately after the death of rangubai. After Rangubai was put in possession of the lands with a restricted estate she created a tenancy in favour of the predecessors of respondent-2 rangubai died on 20th June 1958. Thereafter action was taken by the appellants for eviction of the father of the 2nd respondent by making an application under Section 84 of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The ground for making the application was that on coming to end of life estate of Rangubsi on her death the right of tenancy created by her in favour of the father of 2nd respondent also came to an end and therefore after the death of rangubai his continuance on the land was only as a trespasser, and therefore he was liable to be evicted from the lands. This application was made before the Assistant Commissioner. He granted the application. Against the said order the father of the 2nd respondent went in appeal before the then Mysore Revenue appellate Tribunal in No- 153/61. That appeal was dismissed (Annexure-B ). Aggrieved by the said order, the father of the 2nd respondent presented Writ petition No. 159/62. The writ petition was rejected by an order dated 12-2- 1962 (Exhibit-C ). The order however has remained unexecuted so far. That appeal was dismissed (Annexure-B ). Aggrieved by the said order, the father of the 2nd respondent presented Writ petition No. 159/62. The writ petition was rejected by an order dated 12-2- 1962 (Exhibit-C ). The order however has remained unexecuted so far. Subsequently the father of the 2nd respondent made an application under Section 70 (b) of the B. T. and a. L. Act, praying for a declaration that he was a tenant. The Tahsildar, Jamkhandi, by his order dated 19-5-1962 (Annexure-D) dismissed the application on the ground that after the death of rangubai he became a trespasser. He was also of the view that in view of the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal referred to earlier he had no jurisdiction to give the declaration. The father of the 2nd respondent did not pursue the matter. However he continued to be in possession of the land and after his death, the 2nd respondent, his son was continuing in possession. Even as respondent-2 was continuing to cultivate the land the amended provisions of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, came into force with effect from 1st March 1974. Thereafter the 2nd respondent mace an application in form 7 read with Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. The application was granted by the Tribunal by its order dated 27-3-1976 (Exhibit-A), Aggrieved by the said order the appellant presented the writ petition. Before the learned single Judge the appellant urged the following contentions :-1) The order made for the eviction of the father of the 2nd respondent in proceedings instituted by the appellants under Section 84 of the B. T. and A L. Act, became final and operated as res judicata against tha 2nd respondent and therefore the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent as he was not a tenant lawfully cultivating the lands on the appointed date. 2) Similarly the order made by the tahsildar on an application presented by the father of the 2nd respondent under section 70 (b) of the B. T. and A. L. Act, dismissing the application for a declaration that he was a tenant, also operated as res judicata and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights in the face of the said order. 3) The contention of the 2nd respondent before the learned Single Judge was that in view of the ratio of the judgment of tne Supreme Court in Dahya lala and ors. v Rasul Mahomed Abdul rahim and ors. (1962 Mys. LJ. page-958) in which the Supreme Court held that a tenant inducted by a person having limited rights would continue as a tenant even after the limited right comes to an end, the father of the 2nd respondent could not be regarded as a trespasser at all for the reason even with the death of rangubai who had a limited right in the lands in question the tenancy created by her during the period when she had the right of the management of the land continues and does not come to an end. It was also the contention of the respondent that the two orders made under proceedings instituted by the appellants under Sec. 84 and the proceedings instituted by the father of the 2nd respondent under Sec. 70 (b) were invalid and inoperative in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court. 4) The learned Judge accepted the contention of the 2nd respondent. He was of the view that in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court the father of the 2nd respondent could not be regarded as a trespasser at all after the death of Rangubai and that he must be regarded as having been continuing as a tenant only. 5) As regards the reliance placed on the order passed in the proceedings under Section 84, the learned Judge held that the power to pass an order of eviction against the tenant under Sec. 29 of the B. T. and A. L. Act, vested only wath the Mamlatdar and tnerefore any order passed in a proceeding instituted under Sec. 84 of the Act, was null and void and unenforceable. In support of this the learned Judge relied on the decision of this Court in Sangangouda kalasangouda v Gurappa Parutappa Kori (1966 (1) Mys. L. J. page-69 ). In our view the above view taken by the learned single Judge is un-exceptionable. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants, however strenuously relied on the order passed by the Tahsildar in a proceeding instituted under Section 70 (b) of the Act. L. J. page-69 ). In our view the above view taken by the learned single Judge is un-exceptionable. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants, however strenuously relied on the order passed by the Tahsildar in a proceeding instituted under Section 70 (b) of the Act. He submitted that undoubtedly the Tahsildar (formerly designated as Mamiatdar) had the jurisdiction under Section 70 (b) of the B. T. and A L. Act, to consider the application made under that section and pass orders and as the application of the fathar of the 2nd respondent had been rejected by the tahsildar on 19 5-1962. (Annexure D) in which he held that the father of the 2nd respondent was not a tsnant, the same was binding on the 2nd respondent on principles of res judicata. 7) If nothing could be said against the order of the Tahsildar dated 19-5- 1962 there is force in the contention of the appellant. But as stated earlier the 2nd respondent has expressly pleaded in the statement of objections filed in the writ petition that the order of the Tahsildar dated 19-5-1862 was also invalid. It is true that the father of the 2nd respondent had not challenged the order of the Tahsildar before the higher authorities or before this Court in any writ petition. It is for that reason in our opinion the appellant cannot succeed by placing reliance on the said order. As the appellant has placed reliance on the said order and the contention of the 2nd respondent is that, that order itself is a nuliity being in controvention of the law declared by the Supreme Court, we cannot bush aside the contention urged on behalf of the 2nd respondent on the ground that he had not challenged legality of the order of the Tahslidar dated 19-5-1962. We can give relief to the appellant only if we come to the conclusion that the view taken by the tahsildar in his order dated 19-5-1962 is sound. 8) It is seen from the order of the tahsildar that he did not take the trouble of finding out as to whether the father of the 2nd respondent continued to be the tenant, notwithstanding the fact that he was inducted as a tenant by a limited owner Rangubai. 8) It is seen from the order of the tahsildar that he did not take the trouble of finding out as to whether the father of the 2nd respondent continued to be the tenant, notwithstanding the fact that he was inducted as a tenant by a limited owner Rangubai. Instead, he proceeded to dismiss the petition of the father of the 2nd respondent relying on the judgement of the Revenue appellate tribunal in Appeal No. 153/61 referred to earlier in which the Tribunal upheld the finding of the lower Authorities that the father of the 2nd respondent was a trespasser. As stated earlier the said judgement of the Appellate Authority has been held to be void by the learned single judge relying on the earlier judgements of this Court. Even on the basis that the Tahsildar had taken the view that the father of the appellant could not continue as a tenant after the death of Rangubai. On the ground that Rangubai had a limited estate, the order has to be treated as null and void as by the time the Tahsildar passed the said order the Law had already been declared by the Supreme Court in its judgement in dahya Lala's case. The Judgament was on 3rd May 1962 and the order of the tahsildsr was made on 19-5-1962. We must give effect to the law declared by the Suoreme Court and hold that order of the Tahsildar is invalied and therefore can't be of any assistance to the appellant. 9) In the result we make the following order Writ Appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .