M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India has questioned the legality and correctness of the order (annexure-d), dated 13-1-1988 made by the vi additional city civil judge, bangalore, in miscellaneous appeal no. 17 of 1983 by which he set aside the order (annexure-a), dated 28-2-1983 made by the tahsildar, Bangalore north taluk, in hoa. Cr. 85 of 1979-80 directing eviction of the occupants "of the land in sy. No. 31 of kalagondanahalli village, Bangalore north taluk. ( 2 ) I heard learned counsel on both sides. ( 3 ) BEFORE referring to the real questions of law and fact arising in this petition, itis better to refer to the salient facts necessary for the disposal of this petition. ( 4 ) SURVEY no. 31 of kalagondanahalli later called kadagondanahalli,yeshwantapur hobli, Bangalore north taluk, measuring 5 acres 24 guntas is the subject-matter of dispute in this writ petition. It was assessed to Rs. 17. 63 ps. The case of the petitioner is that the said land has been a service inam land attached to the office of the thoti of the village kadagondanahalli and that therefore it is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('the act' for short ). It is stated that even during the period when the mysore village offices Act, 1908 was prevailing in this part of the state, the land continued to be governed by this act. After the act came into force on 1-2-1963, it is being applied to decide the rights and liabilities of the persons claiming lands of this kind. ( 5 ) THE further case of the petitioner is that muniswamy @ gogga was theoriginal barawardar holding the village office 'thoti' and eversince the time of his father jannali muniya, he had been discharging the duties of tie office of the thoti and had been enjoying the right of cultivation of the land in question. On the death of his father jannali muniya, his name has been found in the record of rights, barabaluti register and quit rent register. ( 6 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Act, muniswamy filed an application beforethe special deputy commissioner for inams abolition for regrant of the land in his favour. It was registered in case no. 172/59-60 on his file. ( 6 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Act, muniswamy filed an application beforethe special deputy commissioner for inams abolition for regrant of the land in his favour. It was registered in case no. 172/59-60 on his file. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the counter fifed by respondent-3 M/s. Mysore rolling millsrepresented by its managing partner Sri l. Khaja mohiyuddin, the land is a personal inam land governed by the mysore (personal and miscellaneous) inams abolition Act, 1954 ('the act of 1954' for short) and it vested in the state pursuant to the notification issued under sub-section (4) of section 1 of the said act. One shamanna was the original guttedar of the land and he leased it by a perpetual lease deed dated 9-4-1918 in favour of one hajee zailulbdeen saheb and on permission obtained by shamanna, zailulabdeen saheb put up a temporary structure on the land and was doing tannery business there. On the death of zailulabdeen saheb, his son abdul jaleel continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the land. Thereafter, he filed an application before the special deputy commissioner for inams abolition for grant of occupancy in his favour. His application was registered in case no. 31 of 1959-60. ( 8 ) THE special deputy commissioner clubbed both the applications ofmuniswamy and abdul jaleel together, held a joint enquiry and made a common order on 21-9-1964 granting occupancy in favour of abdul jaleel are rejecting the application of muniswamy. He did not challenge rejection of this claim; therefore the order against him became final. ( 9 ) AFTER the grant of the land in his favour, abdul jaleel sold it in bits under tworegistered sale deeds dated 19-11-1964 by "which eastern half of the land and construction thereon was sold to one Sri t. Mohamed aii and western half to one Sri t. m. abdul gani. This abdul gani sold 1 acre 10 guntas out of the land purchased by him, i. e. , western portion to one s. a. irani on 23-11-1966 and the remaining to respondent-3 M/s. Mysore rolling mills on 15-10-1966. This respondent-3 also purchased northern portion of the land from t. Mohamed ali on the same day, i. e. , on 15-10-1966. On 16-11-1970 respondent-3 again purchased the remaining land on the southern side from t. Mohamed ali and south-east portion from t. m. abdul gani. This respondent-3 also purchased northern portion of the land from t. Mohamed ali on the same day, i. e. , on 15-10-1966. On 16-11-1970 respondent-3 again purchased the remaining land on the southern side from t. Mohamed ali and south-east portion from t. m. abdul gani. Thus, respondent-3 became the absolute owner of four acres 14guntas of the land in question. ( 10 ) IN the meanwhile, after the act came into force, muniswamy @ gogga filedan application before the assistant commissioner concerned for setting aside the order dated 21-9-1964 of the special deputy commissioner for inams abolition rejecting his application for regrant of the land in question. That application came to be transferred to the tahsildar, Bangalore north taluk, competent authority under the Act, for regrant. Before the tahsildar, apart from muniswamy, there were other rival claimants to the land, viz. , (1) hajee abdul jaleel, (2) mohamed ali and (3) t. m. abdul gani. The tahsildar having held an enquiry by providing opportunity to All of them of being heard made an order as per annexure-a on 28-2-1983 holding that the land in question is a thoti service inam land attached to the office of the thoti of kadagondanahalli village and directing eviction of the occupants thereof as required under section 7 of the act. ( 11 ) THIS order of the tahsildar was the subject-matter of W. P. no. 5570 of 1983filed by t. Mohmed ali who withdrew the writ petition in view of the pendency of the appeal in m. a. no. 17 of 1983 on the file of the vi additional city civil judge, Bangalore city, against the same order. That apart, s. a. irani, one of the purchasers of the land from abdul jaleel, who subsequently sold the land to respondent-3, also challenged the very order of the tahsildar before this court in W. P. no. 7797 of 1983. Murlidher rao, j. , as he then was, by an order dated 18-10-1985 (annexure-c), allowed the writ petition, set aside the order made by the tahsildar and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on whether the land was governed by the Act, whether the holders of the village office were entitled to be regranted the land and whether the persons in occupation of the land were unauthorised occupants so as to be evicted under section 7 of the act. Whether the tahsildar did take any action pursuant to the order of this court is not clear from the records. Be that as it may. ( 12 ) NOW coming to miscellaneous appeal no. 17 of 1983, as stated earlier, itwas filed by respondent-3 challenging the order of the tahsildar. The learned civil judge sitting as an appellate authority, having beard learned counsel for the appellant, respondent-3 herein, alone, because despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents including muniswamy @ gogga as respondent-2, by his order made as per annexure-d, dated 13-1-1988, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the tahsildar holding that the tahsildar had no jurisdiction at All to initiate proceedings under section 7 of the act once the land came to vest in the state pursuant to the notification issued under sub-section (4) of section 1 of the inams abolition Act, 1954. Hence this petition by muniswamy since dead by his daughter muniyamma. ( 13 ) SRI s. n. hatti, learned counsel for the petitioner, took me through theimpugned order and the original records produced by the learned government pleader, and submitted that the land in question being service inam land is governed under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and that therefore question of vesting it to the state pursuant to the notification under sub-section (4) of section 1 of the inams abolition Act, 1954 does not arise. Sri hatti further submitted that even though the so-called shamanna was said to be the guttedar of the land in question, he had no righl to lease the property in favour of hajee zailulabdeen saheb and that if at All there was lease by shamanna, the lessee had not derived any right from such lease as the lessor himself had no such right to create lease. ( 14 ) AT this stage, it is necessary to mention here the submission of Sri hatti thatduring the pendency of the appeal before the learned civil judge, muniswamy died leaving behind his legal representatives, viz. , (1) muniyamma, (2) akkayamma (daughters) and (3) muniyappa @ muniya (son), that without bringing them on record, the learned judge passed the order behind their back, which consequently affected their rights to the land in question and that therefore the order impugned was liable to be quashed. , (1) muniyamma, (2) akkayamma (daughters) and (3) muniyappa @ muniya (son), that without bringing them on record, the learned judge passed the order behind their back, which consequently affected their rights to the land in question and that therefore the order impugned was liable to be quashed. The legal contention of Sri hatti is that the order made by the learned civil judge in ma. No. 17 of 1983 is a nullity, inasmuch as on the date of the order, muniswamy, holder of the village office was dead and his legal representatives were not brought on record. The further submission of Sri hatti is that though this court in W. P. no. 7797 of 1983 quashed the very order impugned before the learned civil judge and remitted the matter for reconsideration, either respondent-3 or his advocate Sri lakshminarasimhaiah who appeared in W. P. no. 5570 of 1983 for t. Mohamed ali, failed to bring it to the notice of the learned civil judge. On this ground also, according to Sri hatti, the impugned herein is liable to be quashed. ( 15 ) REFERRING to the order made by the learned special deputy commissioner forinams abolilion, Sri hatti submitted that firstly the deputy commissioner had no jurisdiclion to pass. any order in respecl of the land governed by the village offices abolilion act and secondly he failed to record a finding on whether the lease made by the so-called guttedar shamanna was permissible in law and that therefore his order granting occupancy under the inams abolition act in favour of abdul jaleel son of hajec zailulabdeen, lessee of the alleged guttedar shamanna, cannot be sustained in law. ( 16 ) THE last submission of Sri hatti is that the tahsildar, compelent authorityunder the village offices abolition act which governed the land in question, in a considered order which was just and proper, held that it was a service inam land attached to the office of thoti of kadagondanahalli village and that therefore the occupants thereof being unauthorised holders were liable to evicted under section 7 of the act. Therefore, the order made by the learned civil judge setting aside the said order of the tahsildar cannot be maintained and the same is liable to be quashed. ( 17 ) SRI lakshminarasimhaiah, learned counsel for respondent-3, argued seekinglo suslain the order (annexure-d) impugned herein. Therefore, the order made by the learned civil judge setting aside the said order of the tahsildar cannot be maintained and the same is liable to be quashed. ( 17 ) SRI lakshminarasimhaiah, learned counsel for respondent-3, argued seekinglo suslain the order (annexure-d) impugned herein. He contended that the land in question being a personal inam land was governed by the mysore (personal and miscellaneous) inams abolition act or, in the alternative, by the Karnataka certain inams abolition Act, 1977, that, therefore, the learned deputy commissioner being competent rightly granled occupancy over the land in favour of abdul jaleel accepting the leasehold rights of his father hajee zailulabdeen saheb who derived them from the original guttedar shamanna in whose favour a registered lease deed was made as far back as in 1918, that thereafter the lessee hajee zailulabdeen saheb having obtained permission from the compelent authority converted the land into non-agricultural purpose and started an industry known as tannery industry, that his son abdul jaleel having run the industry for some time after the death of his father, subsequently sold the land and the structure thereon to the partners of respondent-3 which was being run since then, that the order made by tbe deputy commissioner against muniswamy having not been challenged became final, that the petitioner having known the subsequent developments in respect of the land kept quiet All these days and that therefore it is now open to her to question the order of the learned deputy commissioner. Another contention of Sri lakshminarasimhaiah is that there is no acceptable evidence for this court to come lo the conclusion that the land in question is a land governed by the village offices abolition act as, according to him, the entries in the record of rights do not disclose that miniswamy @ gogga was discharging the duties as thoti and was enjoying the land as the holder of the village office. In the absence of these things, according to him, the learned civil judge was right in setting aside the order of the tahsildar, accepting the case of the appellant-respondent 3 herein and therefore this court need not interfere with it. ( 18 ) THE matter revolves round the question whether sy. In the absence of these things, according to him, the learned civil judge was right in setting aside the order of the tahsildar, accepting the case of the appellant-respondent 3 herein and therefore this court need not interfere with it. ( 18 ) THE matter revolves round the question whether sy. No. 31 measuring 5 acres24 guntas of kalagondanahalli village now called kadagondanahalli, yeshwanthpur hobli, Bangalore north taluk, is or is notgoverned by the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. ( 19 ) I perused the original records produced by the learned governmentadvocate. ( 20 ) IT is true that the alleged guttedar shamanna has executed a registered leasedeed, a certified copy of which is available from the records, in favour of hajee zailulabdeen saheb as far back as on 9-4-1918. It is registered in the office of the sub-registrar, gandhinagar, bangalore, in no. 3955, book-i, volume 344, pp. 338 to 343. Undisputedly, this document confers certain right of lease on the lessee. There is no doubt about it. But the question is whether the lessor shamanna had any right to lease the land in favour of the lessee. To answer this, we will have to fall back on the question whether the land in question was endowed upon the village office 'thoti' so as to bring it within the purview of the provisions of the Village Offices Abolition Act, or whether it was governed by the mysore (personal and miscellaneous) inams abolition Act, 1954 or Karnataka certain inams abolition Act, 1977 as the case may be. On perusal of the original records to ascertain these facts, I found the following documents: (1) certified copy of the extract of the mysore revision settlement register available at page 28. Perusal of it goes to show that when the revision of survey was done in the year 1966, sy. No. 31 of kalagondanahalli village was found to be 'thoti' inam land. (2) re-survey uttar copy at page 26. It shows that according to re-survey as on 24-10-1957, sy. No. 31 of kalagondanahalli village was thoti inam land. (3) a certified copy of re-survey of the lands situated in kalagondanahalli at page 25. It does show, amongst other survey numbers mentioned therein, sy. no. 31 as''thoti mota'. (4) a certified copy of re-survey at page 29. This also discloses that according to re-survey as on 28-10-1957, sy. No. 31 of kalagondanahalli village was thoti inam land. (3) a certified copy of re-survey of the lands situated in kalagondanahalli at page 25. It does show, amongst other survey numbers mentioned therein, sy. no. 31 as''thoti mota'. (4) a certified copy of re-survey at page 29. This also discloses that according to re-survey as on 28-10-1957, sy. No. 31 was found to be thoti inam land. (5) certified copy of the extract from form-a final quit rent register showing whole villages and minor inams in the taluk of Bangalore district - at page 24. This document dated 29-10-1897 shows that whole villages and minor inams therein were confirmed in the taluk of Bangalore and the lands of kalagondanahalli village, yeshwanthpur hobli, were ear-marked as 'thoti service' and the name of the inamdar is shown as 'the office holders only', in column 4. Therefore, the land in question also must have been necessarily the land attached to the office of thoti of kalagondanahalli village. So, right from 1897 if this land were to be continued as having been endowed upon the village office thoti, then we will have to verify what is the nature of the land. (6)zerox copy of the index of lands at page 3. It is also shows that this land is a thoti inam land and the name of muniswamy @ gogga in column 10 pertaining to 'other rights encumbrances with names of right holders or encumbrances'. (7)zerox copy of the record of rights at page 2. This is also the indicative of the fact that sy. No. 31 is a thoti inam land, and (8) certified copies of the record of rights and index of lands available in the records. They make the matter very clear, in that according to them sy. No. 31 is shown to have been thoti inam land and the name of muniswamy @ gogga is clearly mentioned therein in the column 'name of the holder'. ( 21 ) FROM the above documents which have been issued by the competentauthorities, it is abundantly made clear that the land in question has been endowed upon the village office 'thoti' of kalagondanahalli village and that muniswamy @ gogga was the holder of the village office 'tboti'. So naturally the land is governed by the Karnataka village offices abolition act and not by the inams abolition acts, referred to above. So naturally the land is governed by the Karnataka village offices abolition act and not by the inams abolition acts, referred to above. ( 22 ) WITH regard to the nature of the land, in scheduie-ii under section 12 (2) ofthe Act, it is stated as follows:from the above it is clear that the village offices which were in existence under the mysore land revenue code, 1888 were continued even thereafter till they were abolished under the act. This can be ascertained from reading sub-section (1) of section 12 read with clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the act. Section 12 (1) reads:"12. Repeal and savings. (1) the enactments specified in schedule-i and any existing law relating to a village office in force in any area of the State of Karnataka so for as they apply to village offices or to emoluments attached to such offices are hereby repealed. "clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 2 reads: "existing law relating to a village office" includes any enactment, ordinance, rule, bye-law, regulation, order, notification, fireman, hukum, vat hukum or any other instrument or any custom or usage having the force of law, relating to a village office, which may be in force immediately before the appointed date;" ( 23 ) ADMITTEDLY, the act having come into force on 1-2-1963, there was nochange in the nature of the land, inasmuch as, as long as the village offices continued to be in existence, the land or lands attached to such village office continued to be so till they were resumed in view of the abolition of the village offices under the Act, subject to the provisions for regrant under sections 5 and 6 thereof in favour of the holders, of the village office. That being so, I fail to understand how such a land can be leased as contended. That being so, I fail to understand how such a land can be leased as contended. ( 24 ) DEALING with the contention of Sri lakshminarasimhaiah that the lesseehajee zailulabdeen saheb having obtained permission from the competent authority converted the land into non-agricultural purpose and started tannery industry and that therefore the nature of the land having been changed to non-agriculture, question of it being continued to be attached to the village office, till it was abolished, resumption thereon to the government and regrant thereafter in favour of the holders of the village office does not arise, I do not see any force in this contention because firstly respondent-3 has not produced any document to show that the competent authority permitted conversion of this land in accordance with law. Secondly, no licence or approved plan is produced to show that the structure was constructed after conversion after obtaining approval from the competent authority. Thirdly, there is a ruling of this court in dyna foods private ltd. V fakirappa, 1989 (2) Kar. L. j. 377 : ILR 1989 (4) Kar. 3125 on the question whether a land governed by the village offices abolition act could be converted for non-agricultural purpose. Considering the said question, this court has held as follows in paragraph 11:"the act does not define the meaning of the word 'land'. 'land' referred to in the definition in the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 under sub-section (14) of section 2 does not particularise only an agricultural land. The definition is so comprehensive that it does not make any discrimination between agricultural and non-agricultural land. It is almost all-pervasive. It is difficult to accept the contention that by obtaining conversion of the land and by securing an order of exemption, the petitioner could defeat the purpose of the statute. It is well-settled principle of law that the provision of one statute ought not to be permitted to be used for the purpose of defeating the legislative mandate of another statute. "in view of the above, the contention of Sri lakshminarasimhaiah that the land on conversion ceased to be the agricultural land cannot be accepted. Moreover, no authority is empowered to convert a land of this kind. Therefore, as I have already held in the preceding paragraph, the land in question continued to be the land attached to the village office 'thoti' of kadagondanahalli village till it was abolished. Moreover, no authority is empowered to convert a land of this kind. Therefore, as I have already held in the preceding paragraph, the land in question continued to be the land attached to the village office 'thoti' of kadagondanahalli village till it was abolished. ( 25 ) NOW the question is whether the special deputy commissioner for inamsabolition was justified in granting occupancy over the land in question in favour of abdul jaleel. ( 26 ) BY a careful consideration of the order of the special deputy commissioner,it is seen that he has failed to record a finding that the land was coming within the ambit of the provisions of the inams abolition act and therefore he was competent to grant occupancy over it. Perusal of sections 4 to 9 of the act of 1954 makes it clear that either holder of a minor inam or a tenant qualified therein, after the land came to vest in the state, shall make an application for occupancy right over the land in their lawful possession as such on the appointed date. The deputy commissioner failed to see that the applicant abdul jaleel was neither a tenant or holder of a minor inam. Presuming that he was a tenant, the deputy commissioner should have seen whether he was kadim tenant or permanent tenant or quasi-permanent tenant of the inamdar so as to enable him to exercise jurisdiction. It is nobody's case that the claimant was an inamdar. On the other hand, he claimed to be a tenant under one shamanna who was called guttedar sbamanna. He was not examined to show that he was the inamdar or the landlord of the land in question. Secondly, the applicant failed to make out a case that he was cultivating the land as a lawful tenant under the lawful landlord or inamdar under a registered document. In the absence of a finding that the applicant was a person cultivating the land as a lawful tenant deriving title from the landlord, the deputy commissioner ought not to have recorded a finding in his favour. Lastly, the deputy commissioner failed to see whether he had jurisdiction to confer occupancy over the land of this kind. ( 27 ) SRI lakshminarasimhaiah has not been able to persuade me to take the viewthat shamanna was cultivating the land as a lawful tenant under the inamdar of the land in question. Lastly, the deputy commissioner failed to see whether he had jurisdiction to confer occupancy over the land of this kind. ( 27 ) SRI lakshminarasimhaiah has not been able to persuade me to take the viewthat shamanna was cultivating the land as a lawful tenant under the inamdar of the land in question. No such evidence is produced either before this court or before the court below. On the contrary, it has been substantially proved that the land in question was endowed upon the village office 'thoti', that muniswamy @ gogga was the holder of that village office discharging its duties and enjoying the land attached to it and that therefore the tahsildar, competent authority under the Act, on application by muniswamy rightly regranted the land in his favour with a direction to evict the unauthorised holders thereof as required under section 7 of the act. Both the learned deputy commissioner and the learned civil judge have failed to apply their mind to these several facts, therefore their conclusions cannot be sustained. ( 28 ) THE contention of Sri hatti that the learned civil judge erred in passing theimpugned order against a dead person, without bringing on record his legal representatives, is correct because this court in more than one case has held that any order passed against a dead person vitiates. I find some force in the other contention of Sri hatti that Sri lakshminarasimhaiah who appeared in W. P. no. 5570 of 1983 which was withdrawn in view of the pendency of m. a. no. 17 of 1983 on the file of the learned civil judge, failed to bring to his notice the order in W. P. no. 7797 of 1983 filed by another partner of respondent-3 allowing the petition, quashing the order of the tahsildar and directing fresh enquiry in which event the learned civil judge could not have proceeded to pass the impugned order for want of jurisdiction. This is another defect in the impugned order. ( 29 ) CONSIDERING All these aspects, I am clearly of the opinion that the impugnedorder, annexure-d, made by the learned civil judge cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. ( 30 ) IN the result and for the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed andthe order impugned herein is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to costs throughout. ( 30 ) IN the result and for the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed andthe order impugned herein is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to costs throughout. Return the original records to the learned government advocate. --- *** --- .