MURLIDHER RAO, J. ( 1 ) LAND S. No. 29 of Nagarbhavi village was a Thoti service inam land. All village offices were abolished under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, w. e. f. 1-2-1963. The lands attached to the village offices were resumed by the State and they became liable for the payment of land revenue Sections 5 and 6 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act provided for regrant to the holder and authorised holders respectively. "holder" and "authorised Holders" are defined. The limited right given to these persons was to make an application for re-grant. The holders could be granted occupancy rights, on payment of three times the assessment in case of inferior village office and six times of the assessment in case of other village offices. On such regrant, the holder shall be deemed to be occupant or holder of ryotwari patta and shall be liable to pay land revenue to the State Government from the appointed day (. e. 1-2-1963 ). In the case of authorised holder, it shall be regranted on payment of six times the full assessment, the other conditions being the same as are applicable to holders. In the instant case the petitioner was regranted these lands on 31-5-1983. On payment of three times or six times, as the case may be, he becomes an occupant or holder of ryotwari land. There is no material to indicate these payments. One important and valuable consequence that follows the payments is that the grantee becomes the occupant or holder of ryotwari land with effect from 1-2-1963 and he becomes liable to pay assessment from that day. By fiction the land, resumed to Government on 1-2-1963, stands vested in the regrantee from that day. This position is enunciated by this Court in laxmangouda v. State of Karnataka, ILR (Karnataka) 1980 (2) 892 = 1981 (1) KLJ 1 thus : ". . . . . . . . By fiction the land, resumed to Government on 1-2-1963, stands vested in the regrantee from that day. This position is enunciated by this Court in laxmangouda v. State of Karnataka, ILR (Karnataka) 1980 (2) 892 = 1981 (1) KLJ 1 thus : ". . . . . . . . From this pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it follows that the holder or the authorised holder of a Service In am land did not get title to such land simultaneously with the coming into force of the Principal Act providing for resumption and regrant of such land to the holder or the authorised holder, but he got title to such land only after such actual regrant was made, though by such actual regrant, has title to the land related back to the date of commencement of the principal Act. " Thus, by virtue of deeming provision, the grantee becomes the title holder from 1-2-1963, but only for the limited purpose as mentioned in the Act. ( 2 ) THIS land was sought to be acquired by the BDA for the formation of Nagarbhavi layout. The preliminary Notification dated 15-7-1982, was published in Karnataka Gazette on 12-8-1982 ; the name of Khatedar is shown as "thoti Nowkari Inam". Since regrant order had not been made on that day, this description is factually correct. Notice to petitioner could not have been sent. To claim such a notice on the assumption that petitioner may get the regrant order, would be speculative. At that stage notices are required to be served on the persons whose names are found in the records, as primarily liable to pay the land revenue or property tax. The authorities cannot embark on the possibilities and speculations and take steps to serve those who may get a regrant order. It is not certain that the applicant would get a regrant order ; he may or may not. The order of Tahsildar or Assistant Commissioner is not final. There is an appeal. Till a finality is reached in the regrant proceedings, no one can assert his rights ; the property continues to vest with the State. If the holder or authorised holder's application for regrant is rejected, he is liable to be summarily evicted under Section 7 of the Act. if the land is a tenanted land, the person claiming tenancy rights will have to resort to Karnataka Land Reforms Act. If the holder or authorised holder's application for regrant is rejected, he is liable to be summarily evicted under Section 7 of the Act. if the land is a tenanted land, the person claiming tenancy rights will have to resort to Karnataka Land Reforms Act. These being the possible uncertainties, no one can assume that the land will be regranted to him. ( 3 ) IN the counter it is asserted that notice is sent to the Tahsildar on 29-9-1982. I have no reason to disbelieve. Though the land was in possession of the petitioner, the title stood in the State government. The divesting takes place on the date the regrant is made, though it relates back to 1-2-1963. During the period intervening the appointed day and date of grant, the title vests with the State, which is represented by Tahsildar. Tahsildar holds the property, for and on behalf of true owner. If there is a regrant, notionally he divests himself of this right. The deeming provision in Section 5, which is equally applicable to Section 6, reads thus : ". . . . . . The holder shall be deemed to be an occupant or holder of a ryotwari patta within the meaning of the code in respect of such land and shall primarily be liable to pay land revenue to the State Government from the appointed date in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules and orders made thereunder. . . . " The legislative intent in enacting the deeming provision is to maintain the continuity of title, by fiction, for fixing the liability to pay land revenue. This is because the holder or authorised holder, being divested of the right to hold the property, has been allowed to enjoy the possession ; as held by Supreme Court in M. K. B. Menon v. A. C. Estate Duty, AIR1971 SC 2392 , [1972 ]83 ITR162 (SC ), (1971 )2 SCC909 , [1972 ]1 SCR961 , 1972 (4 )UJ470 (SC ) "the legal fiction also which has been introduced should only be limited to that purpose and there can be no justification for extending it". ( 4 ) APPLYING this test, it cannot be said that the petitioner had a right to receive the notice under section 17 (5) in 1982 Though by fiction he is made liable to pay land revenue from 1-2-1963, such a position could not have been imagined and indeed it did not exist in 1982. What is introduced by fiction cannot combat the stark realities. Therefore petitioner's rights being in a fluid stage, he is not entitled to notice. On the contrary, it will not be improper to hold that the notice to Tahsildar is a notice to the subsequent grantee. In fact till the date of regrant, the authorities could not have demanded land revenue nor could they take coercive steps for its recovery, because the liability is determined on the date of regrant ; the right to land in fact, got crystalised on that date. Hence the contention that there is no compliance with Section 17 (5) or (6) cannot be accepted. ( 5 ) IT is next contended that though there is one preliminary Notification, there are two declarations under Section 19. It is contended that first final declaration dated 16-8-1985, was published in Karnataka Gazette on 7-11-1985, and second final declaration dated 5-8-1986, was published in Karnataka Gazette on 4-9-1986. The criticism is that once a final declaration is issued under Section 19, the State Government becomes functus officio. I have repelled this contention in W. P. 1179 of 19873 under the first final declaration an extent of 520 acres and 16 guntas was acquired for Nagarbhavi 1st Stage and under the second declaration 604 acres 23 guntas was acquired for Nagarbhavi II Stage. The area comprised in these two declarations are distinct and separate Being a development scheme covering a vast area it has to be done in stages. For the detailed reasons given in W. P. No, 1179/1987, AIR1988 kant 227 , AIR1988 KAR 227 , ILR1987 KAR 2977 this contention fails. ( 6 ) MR. N. K. Patil submits that notices under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Land Acquisition act, were published in Deccan Herald and Kannada Prabha on 20-9-1986, and award is passed on 15-12-1986, for a sum of Rs. 1,37,410/- for the entire land. While it is asserted by the BDA that possession is taken on 12-1-1987, Mr Krishnappa disputes this fact. 1,37,410/- for the entire land. While it is asserted by the BDA that possession is taken on 12-1-1987, Mr Krishnappa disputes this fact. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this petition fails; it is accordingly dismissed No costs.