S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be in possession of property comprised in survey number 14/27, measuring 24 cents of uppoor village, udupi taluk, which also consists of a residential house in a portion thereof. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed an application under Section 41 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short 'the act') before the tahsildar stating that he is in possession of the said property as a moolageni tenant; that the petitioner had filed an application in form No. 7 before the tribunal and on that basis the land tribunal had granted occupancy rights in his favour and against that order a writ petition was preferred before this court and the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the tribunal and thereafter an order was made on 13-9-1985 by thetribunal whereunder respondent No. 1 was declared to be tenant in respect of eastern portion of 16 cents of land including the house in the aforesaid survey number, while in regard to the balance of land the petitioner was declared to be the occupant. However, petitioner having forcibly secured possession of the land in question and the house thereof, respondent No. 1 made the application before the tahsildar under Section 41 of the act as aforesaid, ( 3 ) PETITIONER contended that he is the brother of respondent No. 1 and hadbeen residing in the house situate in the property in question along with his mother; that the land in question was taken on tenancy in the name of the first respondent in the year 1945 for and on behalf of the family; that even during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner the first respondent secured tenancy in his own name and first respondent did not construct the house; that it was constructed out of the family funds; that he got the same repaired and his mother also had given declaration in that regard; that he also has a joint right along with his brother in the said 8 cents as well as the 16 cents of land; that in the circumstances first respondent has no right to claim possession of the land under Section 41 of the act and that it does not relate to the question of landlord and tenant. ( 4 ) THE tahsildar accepted the argument advanced on behalf of firstrespondent that under Section 41 of the act if a tenant has been declared to be an occupant in respect of any land he becomes entitled to possession thereof and whoever may be in possession of the land or a dwelling house thereof it was open to the tahsildar to evict him and secure possession thereof and deliver the same to the concerned party and in that view of the matter the tahsildar allowed the application of respondent No. 1. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by that order the matter was carried in appeal to the assistant commissioner, who agreed with the view of the tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the matter was further carried to the division commissioner who also did not come to the aid of the petitioner and hence this petition. ( 6 ) THE contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is based upon two decisions of this court, one in the case of parvatawwa v jadiappa gurushantappa akki, 1960 mys. L. j. 209, and the other in the case of vithalbhat bhaskarbhat deodhar and others v yellappagouda channappagoudapatil and another, 1960 mys. L. j. 980. In both these cases scope of Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'bombay Act') which is in pari materia with Section 41 of the act was consid ered. It is held that the only application which a tenant can make under the aforesaid provision is an application against the landlord and he could not make an application against the trespasser for an order for possession and hence that application was not maintainable. However, this court made it clear that such an application was maintainable under Section 84 of the Bombay Act, which is akin to Section 130 of the act. ( 7 ) THIS court in abbubaker beary v tahsildar, 1992 (2) kar. Lj. 119, considered the scope of sections 41 and 130 of the act. However, this court made it clear that such an application was maintainable under Section 84 of the Bombay Act, which is akin to Section 130 of the act. ( 7 ) THIS court in abbubaker beary v tahsildar, 1992 (2) kar. Lj. 119, considered the scope of sections 41 and 130 of the act. This court in abbubaker beary's case noticed that Section 130 could be invoked in the circumstances set forth therein and clause (a) would not be applicable to a case of this nature as there is no transfer or acquisition which, either by the conduct of parties or by operation of law, is invalid under the Act, but a person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land to the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the Provisions of the act and the said Provisions do not provide for the lawful eviction of such person. This court however confined the scope of Section 130 of the act to cases where persons concerned should be unauthorisedly or wrongfully in possession of any land to the use and occupation of which they are not entitled under the act and the said Provisions do not provide for lawful eviction of such persons. That is, in other words, if the use and occupation of the landlord is wrongful on account of one or the other Provisions of the act and it is not as if there is any provision in the act which makes it wrongful for any person to dwell in a house or agricultural land and that possession may be wrongful and it may not be on account of any Provisions of the act and therefore Section 130 would not be applicable. With great respect, the reasoning adopted in this decision runs counter to the decisions rendered in parvathawwa and vithalbhatdeodhar's cases referred to earlier. With great respect, the reasoning adopted in this decision runs counter to the decisions rendered in parvathawwa and vithalbhatdeodhar's cases referred to earlier. When this court specifically held that a petition under Section 84 of the Bombay Act would be competent against a trespasser relying upon a decision of the Bombay high court in shiddappa bhimanna ullangadi v mallappa hennappa badachi, special civil application 278/56, wherein Justice gajendragadkar explained the position and stated that application under Section 29 of the Bombay Act can be and must be between a landlord and his tenant and it cannot be between a landlord and a trespasser and so in their opinion an application under Section 29 (1) of the Bombay Act cannot be between a tenant and a trespasser. However, an applica tion for eviction of the respondent who according to the applicant was a trespasser was perfectly competent. Similar is the view expressed in vithalbhatdeodhar's case. In fact, in that decision again referring to a decision of the Bombay high court rendered by Justice shah reported in AIR 1956 Bombay 706, it was stated that if a tenant is seeking to rely upon some right which he claims under the Provisions of the act an application against the landlord for restoration of possession can lie only under Section 29 of the act. If however he does not seek to enforce a right arising under the Provisions of the act but claims possession relying upon his title an application invoking the exercise of jurisdiction by the collector under Section 84 would lie. A reading of Section 130 (b) of the act would make it clear that it does not merely cover cases with reference only to landlord or tenant, but the expression used being 'any person' would even refer to a person who is a trespasser. Provisions of sections 41 and 130 of the act are in the nature of execution proceedings giving effect to the decrees or orders passed by the authorities in question. In addition to that, those Provisions can be invoked where possession may be unlawful. Provisions of sections 41 and 130 of the act are in the nature of execution proceedings giving effect to the decrees or orders passed by the authorities in question. In addition to that, those Provisions can be invoked where possession may be unlawful. To confine the scope of Section 130 only to cases where possession becomes unlawful in the circum stances specifically mentioned in the Provisions of the act will be reading down the scope of the Provisions of the act and unnecessarily cutting down the jurisdiction of the authorities thus depriving the rights of tenants or other persons entitled to possession under the valid orders made by the authorities under the act nullified. In that event the scope of Section 130 if correctly understood certainly enables the authorities concerned even if Section 41 is not applicable to evict the petitioner and put respondent No. 1 in possession thereof. Hence, even if the reasoning adopted by the authorities may not be correct, as long as they possess power under one provision or the other, mere labelling the exercise of power under one provision does not preclude the authorities from exercising such power. (emphasis supplied) ( 8 ) NO other point is raised in this petition. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, this petition is liable to be dismissed. --- *** --- .