( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the four petitioners (sons of late k. Hanumantha rao) against the first respondent-sree rama vidyavardhaka sangha, the second respondent-tahsildar, and the third respondent-state, praying that the order passed as per annexure-t dated 5-9-1996 by the district judge in m. a. (voa ). 37 of 1984 allowing the appeal filed by the present first respondent-sangha and setting aside the order dated 24. 5. 1994 passed by the tahsildar (as per annexure-n), regranting the petition land bearing s. no. 31 measuring 4 acres 17 guntas situated at kondethimmanahalli village, nidagal hobli, pavagada taluk (inam land) in favour of the present writ petitioners, should be set-aside. ( 2 ) ANNEXURE-U is the order passed by the assistant commissioner, madhugiri, in h. o. a. 1 of 67-68. The assistant commissioner, has ordered that the present first respondent is eligible for regrant under proviso to Section 7 of the inams abolition act and dismissed the claim of hanumantharao for regrant of the land. He has also come to the conclusion that the present first respondent was in possession of the land by virtue of the sale deed dated 3-7-1969 executed by j. b. sathyanarayana rao. ( 3 ) THIS order dated 4-5-1970 passed by the assistant commissioner rejecting the claim of hanumantharao, father of the writ petitioners, for regrant of the land was challenged by the said hanumantharao before the learned district judge in r. a. No. 10 of 1970. ( 4 ) THE learned district judge, in his detailed considered order, has observed that there was no dispute that the land was a service inam land attached to the shanubhogi office and the appellant (hanumantharao) was only an officiator viz. , gumastha shanubhogue. ( 5 ) THE learned district judge, after noticing that the barabardar of the shanubhogi office has been made out in the name of j. b. sathyanarayanarao (from whom present r-1 purchased), grand-son of previous barabardar was admitted, came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed the appeal. ( 6 ) THIS order of the district judge passed on 10-12-1970 inr. a. no. 10 of 1970 has become final in view of Section 3 (2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. ( 6 ) THIS order of the district judge passed on 10-12-1970 inr. a. no. 10 of 1970 has become final in view of Section 3 (2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. ( 7 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that there is absolutely no material to show that j. b. sathyanarayana rao was the barabardar. The order passed by the assistant commissioner on 4-5-1970 (annexure-u) clearly shows that the assistant commissioner has given a definite finding in paragraph-8 of his order that "it is evident that barabardar Sri sathyanarayana rao has sold the land in favour of the present first respondent. This order has been confirmed by the district judge on the appeal filed by hanumantharao. So there is no force in the argument that j. b. sathyanarayana rao was not the barabardar. ( 8 ) IT bears repetition. The order passed by the assistant commissioner as per annexure-u rejecting the claim of the petitioners' father hanumantharao that he was entitled for regrant, was confirmed by the district judge in appeal as per Annexure-D. In other words, the claim of hanumantharao was rejected. This order has become conclusive in view of Section 3 (2) of the Village Offices Abolition Act. ( 9 ) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners (sons of hanumantharao) that they are not claiming through their father hanumantharao, but they are claiming independently by virtue of the grant made by the tahsildar as per annexure-n dated 24-5-1984, regranting the land jointly in favour of the four petitioners. ( 10 ) THIS order as per annexure-n, be it noted, has been passed by the tahsildar. It passes one's comprehension how the tahsildar could have passed this order regranting the land in favour of the petitioners when the superior officer (assistant commissioner) had already passed the order as per annexure-u which was confirmed by the district judge as per Annexure-D. There is no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners are claiming right for regrant independently of their father. ( 11 ) IT is argued by the learned-counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the assistant commissioner as per annexure-u was only to the effect that the present first respondent was eligible for regrant and it was not a regrant as such. ( 11 ) IT is argued by the learned-counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the assistant commissioner as per annexure-u was only to the effect that the present first respondent was eligible for regrant and it was not a regrant as such. This discrepancy does not establish the claim of the petitioners since the learned district judge who confirmed the order as per Annexure-D held that sathyanarayana rao was the barabardar. The contesting first respondent has produced annexure-r-1 which is the statement made by the present first petitioner dhalipathi rao before the tahsildar in which he has admitted that j. b. sathyanarayana rao, grand-son of kalmariyappa, was the barabardar. It is this barabardar j. b. sathyanarayana rao who has alienated the service land in question in favour of the present first respondent. ( 12 ) ANNEXURE r-2 is the application dated 18-6-1982 made by the first petitioner dhalipathi rao to the tahsildar for grant of service land to him. Annexure r-2 is the copy of the form under Section 5 of the Village Offices Abolition Act made by the first petitioner dhalipathi rao, son of hanumantha rao, praying that the land in question should be registered in his favour. Annexure r-2 is dated 29-6-1982. It is significant to note that the first petitioner has not stated what right he had to claim the petition land to be registered in his name. ( 13 ) ON the contrary, as per annexurer-3, j. b. sathyanarayana rao has prayed that the service land should be regranted to him and it should be registered in his name because he was the registered barabardar. ( 14 ) THE learned district judge, having considered all the aspects in his detailed Order, allowed the appeal as per annexure-t. It is true that the learned district judge has observed that as per annexure-u, the assistant commissioner ordered regrant in favour of the present first respondent, but it was held that the first respondent was only eligible for regrant. This is a wrong observation which does not affect the impugned order passed by the district judge. The order passed by the learned district judge is neither illegal nor perverse. ( 15 ) THE matter became concluded as far back as 10-12-1970. The petitioners, long after the rights were settled, have been trying to clutch at straw and carve out a right from a vacuum. The order passed by the learned district judge is neither illegal nor perverse. ( 15 ) THE matter became concluded as far back as 10-12-1970. The petitioners, long after the rights were settled, have been trying to clutch at straw and carve out a right from a vacuum. They cannot be permitted to do so. ( 16 ) THE petition is dismissed. No costs. M. b. vishwanath, j. Dated: 1-3-1997 order on i. a. No. V the petitioners file an application under Section 151 of the C. P. C. for stay. In the interests of justice, stay granted for a period of eight weeks from today. --- *** --- .