RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has sought for quashing Annexures 'g', 'h', 'j' and 'l' and for a writ of mandamus directing the tahsildar, Srinivasapur Taluk (Respondent No. 2 herein) to consider his application for regrant of certain lands in his favour, in accordance with the law. ( 2 ) A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows : it is not in dispute that Survey No. 77/2 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas. Survey No. 57/1 measuring 15 guntas and Survey No. 620/79 (extent not known) all situated at Avalakuppa village, srinivasapur Taluk, Kolar District, are the lands endowed upon the Village Office namely Talavari Office of Avalakuppa. The case of the petitioner is that his father Sri Narayanappa purchased, by two registered sale deeds dated dated 7-10-1967 and 23-10-67 executed by sriyuths ; Narasimhappa. Gopala Narayanappa and Ramanujappa (Respondents 3 to 6 herein), the holders of the village office, 39 guntas of land in Survey No. 77/2 for valuable consideration. His further case is that eversince the sale in his favour he has been in cultivation and enjoyment of the said land. ( 3 ) AFTER coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the Tahsildar, srinivasapur Taluk (Respondent No. 2) has taken action to issue show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why action should not be taken to evict him from the land in question on the ground that the land was sold to him in contravention of the provisions of the Act. ( 4 ) IT is necessary to mention here that the original holders of the village office having approached the Tahsildar, Srinivasapur Taluk, seeking for regrant of the land in question in their favour under sec. 5 (1) of the Act, an order was passed by the Tahsildar on 27-9-1983 vide annexure-N. By the said order, the tahsildar, regranted the land in question as follows : (1) Narayanappa Bin Munikariyappa 1/3rd share, (2) Narasimhappa Bin Gopalappa. 1/3rd share, (3) Narasimhappa Bin Chinnappa, 1/3rd share. This regrant was made in regard to survey No 77/2 to the extent of 2 acres 28 guntas and Survey No. 57/1 to the extent of 15 guntas both situated at avalakuppa village. 1/3rd share, (3) Narasimhappa Bin Chinnappa, 1/3rd share. This regrant was made in regard to survey No 77/2 to the extent of 2 acres 28 guntas and Survey No. 57/1 to the extent of 15 guntas both situated at avalakuppa village. In so far as Survey no. 620/79 is concerned the learned tahsildar has postponed the decision in view of the interim order of stay granted by this Court. ( 5 ) IT is necessary to mention here that before the order (Annexure-N) was passed, there was an order of eviction made by the competent authority on 23-5-1982 and pursuant to the said order, on 13th September 1983 the petitioner was evicted from the land in question and the same has been referred to in the order Annexure-N while regranting the lands in question in accordance with law. It is for this reason, when the matter was heard earlier, the Court wanted to ascertain as to whether the petitioner continued to be in possession of the lands in question. Sri Narayana Gowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner had under taken on 2nd August 1988 that he would produce documentary evidence to show that the petitioner continued to be in possession of the lands in question, despite the observation made in the order annexure-N that the petitioner was evicted earlier to the said order. However. Narayana Gowda, failed to comply with the undertaking given by him. In other words there is no documentary evidence produced by the petitioner to show that as on the date when this writ petition was filed, the petitioner continued to be in possession of the lands in question. In that view of the matter, i must record a finding which is irresistable that the petitioner ceased to be in possession of the lands in question as on the date when this writ petition was filed. This finding of mine is supported by the observation made by the Tahsildar in his order dated 27-9-1983. ( 6 ) THE main question that arises for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for a writ of mandamus in view of the ruling of this Court in lakshmana Gowda v State of Karnataka and ors. (1981) 1 Kar. L J. at page 1) ? ( 6 ) THE main question that arises for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for a writ of mandamus in view of the ruling of this Court in lakshmana Gowda v State of Karnataka and ors. (1981) 1 Kar. L J. at page 1) ? the contention of Sri Narayana gowda learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is a purchaser of the land endowed upon the village office for valuable consideration after coming into force of the Act, in view of the ruling of this Court in Lakshmana gowda's Case, the regrant made in favour of the holders of the village office would enure to the benefit of the purchaser viz. , the petitioner. It is in this context, the learned Counsel submitted that he was entitled for a writ of mandamus. Answeiing Question No. 3, in the reported judgment in Lakshmana Gowda's case, Their Lord Ships at para 65 laid down as follows :"we have already held that though the holder or the authorised holder of a Service Inam Land got title to such land only when it was actually regranted to him under S. 5 or 6 of the Principal act such title related back to the date of coming into force of that Act. From this, it would follow that if he purported to alienate such land before it was regranted to him, but after the principal Act came into force the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel embodied in S. 43 of the transfer of Property Act would apply and the title he subsequently acquired on such regrant of that land would enure to the benefit of his alienee who would get a good title to such land after such regrant to his alienor. There is also no good reason why the benefit of S. 43 should be denied to such an alienee when the Principal Act did not prohibit the holder or the authorised holder of a Service Inam Land from transferring his interest or right therein after it was resumed and before it was regranted to him. There is also no good reason why the benefit of S. 43 should be denied to such an alienee when the Principal Act did not prohibit the holder or the authorised holder of a Service Inam Land from transferring his interest or right therein after it was resumed and before it was regranted to him. "however, the very question came up for re consideration before another Division bench of this Court in Hanumaiah v state of Karnataka (I. L. R 1987 Karnataka 550) The Division Bench reconsidering the question referred to above particularly regarding the amended Section 7 of the Act and having regard to the object of the said section held as follows :"with reference to the law laid down in Lakshmana Gowda's case (Supra) it is contended that subsequent regrant in favour of the vendor who is the holder of the inferior village office would enure to his benefit and entitle the vendee i. e. , unauthorised holder who is evicted, to claim title Two factors mitigate against this submission. Firstly, on the day the land was sold it had vested in the State Government and the vendor had no title, and secondly, the amended Section 7 has taken away the right of unauthorised holder to claim regrent in any circumstances. In this situation it is not possible to confer title on the unauthorised holder by invoking equity or the principle of 'feeding the grant by estoppel. What is taken away by the legislature cannot be conferred by the Court. To accede to the petitioners contention would be to extend the benefit under the old provision notwithstanding its deletion from the statute. Such a thing is impermissible as is made clear by the following enunciation in Lakshmana Gowda's case. " ( 7 ) THEIR Lord Ships have extracted what is stated in para 55 in Lakshmana gowda's case. In para 8 of the reported judgment, they have further held as follows :"in this view of the matter, it seems to us that the impugned order, which is made under the amended section 7 of the Act long after its coming into force, does not enure to the benefit of the petitioners and they do not get any title to the lands. The regrant order made under amended section 7 of the Act does not stand on the same footing as that of a regrant made under Section 5 or 6 of the Act. " ( 8 ) AS I have already observed in the foregoing paragraphs, in the impugned order made by the Tahsildar regranting the lands in favour of the respondents 3 to 6, there is an observation that the petitioner who was an un-authorised holder of the lands was evicted before action was taken to regrant the lands in question. In view of the clear facts, lam clearly of the opinion that, inview of amended Section 7 of the Act, since the petitioner was found to be in unauthorised occupation of the land in question, necessary action was taken by the competent authority to evict him. ( 9 ) IT is only thereafter the order of regrant came to be made in favour of holders or the authorised holders of the village office. In view of the decision in hanumaiah s case, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .