RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a purchaser of 64 guntas out of 2-15 guntas in S. No. 33 chikkakadiganahalli, Chikkaballapur Taluk from respondent-3 under two Sale Deeds dated 8-6-1973 and 12-4-1974 and his brother Muniappa. The said lands were attached to the inferior village office held by the Village Officer Muniappa Subsequent to the promulgation of Village officers Abolition Act the Tahsildar initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the act and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the lands in question on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation of the said lands under the provisions of the Village Officers Abolition Act (the 'act' ). ( 2 ) BY order dated 31-5-1983 passed by the Tahsildar, Chikkaballapur as per annexure-B the land bearing Sy. No. 33 was regranted in favour of Smt, Lakshmakka widow of Muniappa and hanumantharayappa,-respondents 3 and 4. The Tahsildar, in the same Order, made on 31-5-1983, ordered eviction of the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant. This order is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. ( 3 ) IT is urged by Sri Padmaraj the learned Counsel for the petitioner by virtue of the ruling this Court in Lakshmanagowda v. State of Karnataka (1981 (1) Kar. L. J. at page 1) case he is entitled to protection of his title and its regulari- sation by virtue of the regrant in favour of his alienors. ( 4 ) IT is not in dipute that the sales in question were executed prior to 7-8- 1978 and that the order of regrant made subsequently on 31-5-1983, is in respect of the same lands. ( 5 ) SRI Dattu, learned High Court govt. Pleader has argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of lakshmangowda's case in view of the later Division Bench 'decision of this court in Hanumaiah v. State of Karnataka (I. L R. 1987 Karnataka page 550 ). He has taken me through the said decision and the relevant paragraphs on which he has sought reliance and in particular paragraph-6 of the said judgment. He has taken me through the said decision and the relevant paragraphs on which he has sought reliance and in particular paragraph-6 of the said judgment. ( 6 ) SRI Padmaraj has argued that having regard to the order of regrant and the pronouncement of this Court in lakshmangowda's case, the petitioner-purchaser is entitled to protection of his title by virtue of the regrant made in favour of his alienor under Section 5 of the Act and he has refied upon paragraphs 63, 64, 65 and 66 of the said judgment. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the submissions of Sri Dattu that on an application of the ratio laid down in hanumaiah's case the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of regrant made in favour of his vendor. He leys emphasis on the observations made by the Division bench in paragraph-6 of the judgment in which it is stated that :"a regrant made under Section 7 of the amended provision does not entitle the purchaser from getting the benefit of Lakshmangowda's case". ( 8 ) I have carefully considered the submissions of Sri Dattu. The reference in Hanumaiah's case reads thus :"whether the regrant order made under Section 7 of the Act stands on the same footing as that of a regrant order under Sections 5 or 6 of the act. " ( 9 ) THEIR Lordships were dealing with the case of regrant under Section 7 of the Act. The regrant in the present case is made under Sections. Hence, the ratio of the decision in Hanumaiah's case, in my opinion, is not applicable to this case. Sri Dattu's submission that the order of regrant should be construed as an order made under Section 7 though the tahsildar has mentioned under Section 5 in the order, since the regrant is in respect of a land attached to an inferior village office, cannot be accepted. Any order of regrant whether it be a inferior or superior village office can be made only under Sections 5 or 6 unless the re-grant is made under Section 7 (3) of 1978 act. Hence, the contention of Sri Dattu is rejected. Any order of regrant whether it be a inferior or superior village office can be made only under Sections 5 or 6 unless the re-grant is made under Section 7 (3) of 1978 act. Hence, the contention of Sri Dattu is rejected. ( 10 ) THE regrant in the present case is made under Section 5 though it was a land attached to an inferior village office and the ratio of the decision in Lakshmana gowda's case applies to the petitioner's case also. It may be noticed that this court did not make any distinction between case of regrant to a village officer whether he held a superior village office or an inferior village office and found hold that the benefit of the regrant accrues to all purchasers of lands attached to all village offices. I further agree with the submission of Sri Padmaraj that the decision of the Division Bench in hanumaiah's case is not applicable to the facts of the case. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed and that part of the order made by the Tahsildar, Chikkaballapur as per annexure-B directing eviction of the petitioner, is quashed. The petitioner may approach the Tahsildar to regularise his title in accordance with law and in the light of this decision. --- *** --- .