M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has sought for quashing annexure-b, the notice of eviction dated 8-5-1981 issued by the tahsildar-lst respondent herein for the reasons set out in the petition. ( 2 ) BY a perusal of the grounds taken in the writ petition, it is seen that the entireargument in support of the writ petition, as against the action taken by the tahsildar revolves around the ruling of this court in Lakshmana Gowda v State of Karnataka and others, 1981 (1) KAR. L. J. 1. In other words, based upon the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel arising out of section 43 of the Transfer Of Property Act, which came to be considered in lakshmana gowda's case, the petitioner sought to attack the action taken by the tahsildar seeking to evict the petitioner from the land in question. ( 3 ) IT is undisputed that 6-07 acres of land in sy. No. 137 of marasettyhalh village, gandsi hobli, arasikere taluk, hassan district is endowed upon the village office talari of the said village. Therefore the land in question is governed under the Provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the act. There is no doubt about this factor. ( 4 ) IT is again undisputed that by a registered sale deed dated 10-6-1974 and againby another sale deed dated 14-10-1974,6-07 acres of the land, subject-matter of the notice, annexure-b, came to be sold in favour of the petitioner for valuable consideration. Eversince the dates of sale, it is stated that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of this land. ( 5 ) IT is again stated that after the sale of these lands in favour of the petitioner, he has invested quite a good sum of money and improved the land. ( 6 ) IT is brought to the notice of the court, that on coming into force of the Act, the holder of the village officer dharanaiah (since deceased, his legal representatives were brought on record by an order of this court on 21-6-1981) approached the tahsildar seeking an order of regrant of these lands in his favour under sections 5 and 6 of the Act, and that the application for regrant is pending consideration before the tahsildar. All these can be gathered by a perusal of the pleadings found in the petition. ( 7 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that as long as the application for regrant in favour of the 4th respondent was pending before the tahsildar, no action could be taken to evict the petitioner. To say so, the petitioner has placed reliance on the ruling of this court in lakshmana gowda's case. ( 8 ) THE ruling of this court in lakshmana gowda's case came to be reconsidered and distinguished in Hanumalah v State of Karnataka, ILR 1987 (1) KAR. 550 and later in the case of Chikkanarasaiah v Thirupathaiah, 1990 (1) KAR. Lj. Sh. N. 48 : ILR 1989 (2) KAR. 1520. Reconsidering the view taken in Lakshmana Gowda's case and referring to the other decisions relevant to do so, the division bench in hanumaiah's case held as follows:"under the amended provision, there cannot be a regrant in favour of unauthorised holder. He is liable to be summarily evicted after the issue of notice, the clear intention of the legislature being the non-recognition of any right in the unauthorised holder. In other words, on and after 7-8-1978 he is liable to be evicted; he cannot assert any rights, howsoever long his possession may be or whatever investment he might have made in improving the land. Since this is the intention of the legislature, he cannot plead equity or claim any right on equitable grounds. His possession is no better than a rank trespasser, (para 5)"referring to the amended Provisions of Section 7 and the right of unauthorised holder, squatting on such a land, the division bench further held in para 6 as follows:"two factors mitigate against the contention 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, 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 regrant 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'. 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," ( 9 ) THE division bench in chikkanarasaiah's case followed the ruling inhanumaiah's case. Reconsidering the view taken in lakshmana gowda's case, on the doctrine of 'feeding the grant by estoppel' and again the view taken in hanumaiah's case, the division bench held in para 14 as follows:"in the year 1978, Principal Act was amended. Section 5 (3) as amended came into force with effect from 7-8-1978. Section 5 (4) as introduced by the Amendment Act was read down in lakshmana gowda's case as having only prospective operation from 7-8-1978. Section 7 was substituted with effect from 24-12-1975 and a new Section 7-a was introduced with effect from 7-8-1978. There is a total bar to alienate the granted lands for a period of 15 years from 7-8-1978 if the land is granted either under Section 5 or Section 6. If the land is granted under Section 7, it shall not be transferred similarly, as per Section 7-a. Therefore, if a land is granted after the Amendment Act became effective, the reading down of Section 5 (3) or Section 5 (4) in lakshmana gowda's case, would in no way benefit the transferees from the grantees. The grant is subject to the restrictions and these specific statutory restrictions cannot be overridden by an equitable doctrine of estoppel, or by applying Section 43 of the Transfer Of Property Act. "another division bench of this court also considered the very question in Gopalappa v Secretary to government of Karnataka, 1990 (3) KAR. Lj. 351: ILR 1991 (1) KAR. 42, wherein this court reconsidering the principle contained in Section 43 of the Transfer Of Property Act, with respect to 'feeding the grant by estoppel' has held in para 8 as follows:"the principle contained in Section 43 of the Transfer Of Property Act which lays down the principle of feeding or estoppel by grant has no application to the facts of the case. If there was no prohibition for sale of the lands after regrant in favour of the holders of the inam, it could have been contended that though on the date on which the agreements were entered into, they were hit by sub-section (6) of Section 5 after the regrants were made as the respondents were entitled to sell the land, the petitioner was entitled to retain the possession and it was for the grantees to file a suit for recovery of possession of the land from the petitioner in which event he could not only rely on Section 43 of the Transfer Of Property Act but also on Section 53-a of the Transfer Of Property Act which incorporates the doctrine of part performance. But in the present case the position is sub-section (3) of Section 5 prohibits the transfer of lands regranted under Section 5 (1) for a period of 15 years from the date on which the 1978 (Amendment) act came into force. " ( 10 ) APPLYING the principle laid down both in chikkanarasaiah as well as in gopalappa's case to the facts of this case, it is clear that since the sale of land having taken place after the act has come into force, the said sales are clearly hit by the Provisions of the amended Section 7 of the act. Therefore, applying the rulings of this court referred to above, I have no hesitation to hold that the contention taken by the petitioner is one without any force. Lastly the division bench in gopalappa's case rejecting the case of the petitioner that the action of eviction shall be taken after the disposal of application for regrant, has held in para 7 as follows:"there is no provision in the act which provides that there should be eviction first and regrant next. All that sub-section (6) of Section 5' provides is, if the agreement had taken place after the resumption of the land under clause (3) of Section 4 and before the regrant, the agreement is void. "therefore, the argument advanced in the present case saying that since the application for regrant is pending before the tahsildar, petitioner cannot be evicted, is of no consequence. "therefore, the argument advanced in the present case saying that since the application for regrant is pending before the tahsildar, petitioner cannot be evicted, is of no consequence. In view of the amended Section 7 of the Act, the tahsildar was right in taking action seeking to evict the petitioner as per annexure-b. I do not see any good ground to interfere with the said action. In the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed. ( 11 ) SRI Sidda gangaiah, learned high court government pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondents-1 to 3 within 4 weeks. --- *** --- .