ORDER The order at Annexure-X, dated 26-10-2005 passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, the 1st respondent herein is assailed in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent has ordered to revert the land to an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas and 0.13 guntas respectively, situated in Sy. Nos. 49/1 and 49/2 of Hebbalu Village of Bangalore North Taluk to the legal representatives of original grantees, and ordered to restore katha in the joint names of the legal heirs of original grantees namely, Krishnappa S/o Late Chikkaiah, Munihanumappa Sio Late Chikkamuniswamy, Thimmaraju S/o Late Thimmarayappa, Venkatamma Wlo Late Ramaiah and Hanumakka W/o Late Kempaiah, on the ground that the said land has been alienated in contravention of Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short). 2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under: One Chikkamuniyappa was the lnamdar of the land bearing Survey No. 49 of Hebbalu Village to an extent of 1 acre 34 guntas (including Karab portion of land). As the lnam land is attached to Thoti Office to which, said Chikkamuniyappa was lnamdar, he filed an application under Section 5 of the 1961 Act' for re-grant of the aforesaid land along with three other lands in the year 1972. The Assistant Commissioner, after considering the material on record has re-granted the said land along with other lands in favour Sri T. Chikkamuniyappa, holder of office by the order at Annexure-A, dated 6-6-1973. The re-grantee namely Chikkamuniyappa, filed application along with one Thimmarayappa and others on 13-6-1973 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore praying for permission to alienate the land in Sy. No. 49 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas and other lands under Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. The re-grantee namely Chikkamuniyappa, filed application along with one Thimmarayappa and others on 13-6-1973 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore praying for permission to alienate the land in Sy. No. 49 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas and other lands under Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. The Assistant Commissioner who was then delegated with powers, after considering the case on merits granted permission to the re-grantee Chikkamuniyappa to alienate the said land by passing the order vide Annexure-E, on the following conditions: (1) That this permission is without prejudice to the tenancy rights if any in the land; (2) That this land should be used for agricultural purposes only; (3) That if he gives up agriculture within five years, the land shall vest in the State Government subject to payment to him of an amount equal to eight times the net annual income of the land or when the land has been purchased, the price paid for the land, if such price is less than eight times the net annual income of the land. No other conditions are imposed except the aforesaid conditions in the order Annexure-E by which permission is granted to re-grantee to alienate the property in question. After obtaining permission to alienate the land, said Chikkamuniyappa along with several holders sold 1 acre 18 guntas out of total extent of 1 acre 33 guntas to Sri J.B. Vasudevan and K.M. Balachandran (vendors of the petitioners herein) on 27-6-1973. The re-grantees further sold the remaining land to an extent of 0.16 guntas in Sy. No. 49 on the very day to the very same persons namely J.B. Vasudevan and K.M. Balachandran. The sale deeds are produced at Annexures-C and D respectively along with writ petition. It is relevant to note here itself that the re-grantees (Hakkudars) have remitted the occupancy price equal to 21 years assessment, as could be seen from the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-A. The said 21 times land revenue assessment includes 6 times the land revenue assessment for the purposes of getting re-grant under Section 5(1) of the Act and 15 times land revenue required to be deposited under Section 5(3) of the Act as it stood then for the purposes of getting permission to alienate the property. Thus it is clear from the records that said J.B. Vasudevan and KM. Thus it is clear from the records that said J.B. Vasudevan and KM. Balachandran have purchased the land in question only after completion of all the formalities required under Section 5 of the Act. Out of the total extent of 1 acre, 33 guntas, 0-16 guntas was got converted for industrial purpose by said J.B. Vasudevan and KM. Balachandran as per the order dated 9-2-1976 vide Annexure-F. The said 0-16 guntas of land which was converted was sold by J.B. Vasudevan in favour of the 2nd petitioner herein (Sanjay K Srivastav) on 17-12-1980 (sale deed is at Annexure-G), and whereas the 1st petitioner (Prakash K Srivastava) has purchased the remaining 1 acre 18 guntas of land from J.B. Vasudevan on 9-11-1981 (sale deed at Annexure-H). In the year 1984, the proceedings under Sections 79-A and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 were initiated against the petitioners by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the petitioners are not agriculturists. The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore, by his order dated 29-7-1994 (Annexure-J) ordered for forfeiting the land in question to the State Government by holding that these petitioners are not agriculturists and consequently, declared the sale deeds as null and void. Against the said order of forfeiture, the petitioners have preferred appeal before the Kamataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 360 of 1994. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the material on record set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and held that the petitioners are agriculturists and that their income from other source other than the agricultural income does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- per annum, by its order dated 22-1-1996 vide Annexure-K Thus, the proceedings relating to Sections 79-A and 80 of the Land Reforms Act ended in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, on 3-6-1996 petitioners filed application before the Town Planning Member attached to the office of the Bangalore Development Authority seeking permission for change of land use and the same was rejected on 4-4-1997 vide order at Annexure-M and subsequently, by another order produced at Annexure-P. In the meantime, the survey number of land in question was bifurcated into Sy. Nos. 49/1 (measuring 1 acre 18 guntas) and 49/2 (16 guntas) Challenging the order of rejection for change of land use, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 30016 of 2000 before this Court. Nos. 49/1 (measuring 1 acre 18 guntas) and 49/2 (16 guntas) Challenging the order of rejection for change of land use, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 30016 of 2000 before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the Town Planning Authority and remanded the matter back to the Bangalore Development Authority for fresh consideration. After remand and on reconsideration, the BDA has allowed the application filed by the petitioners for change of land use and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,40,092/- plus Rs. 1,22,260/- towards betterment charges, by the orders dated 18-3-2004 and 4-10-2004 vide Annexures-S and V respectively After remittance of said amount, the Government of Karnataka, by its order dated 21-22004 approved the order passed by the Bangalore Development Authority under Section 14(a) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 relating to change of land user. Subsequently, the BDA has issued confirmation letters dated 18-5-2004 and 23-2-2005 vide Annexures-V and W respectively, intimating the petitioners about the change of land use.In the meanwhile, one Sri Chikka Muniga represented by his power of attorney holder Sri C. Laxminarayana and Sri C.R. Munireddy filed Civil Suit in a.s. No. 6506 of 1993 for permanent injunction in respect of the entire land Survey No. 49 against the petitioners, which came to be dismissed for default on 25-6-1996. In the year 1988, the 6th respondent herein, namely, Ravikumar filed a suit in a.s. No. 580 of 1998 challenging the two sale deeds dated 27-6-1973 executed by the grantees in favour of the vendors of the petitioners and subsequent sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners and the said suit is pending adjudication before the Civil Court. When the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent herein namely, Munihanumappa filed an application before the 1st respondent- Tahsildar for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the original grantees in favour of KM. Balachandran and J.G. Vasudevan, the vendors of the petitioners. The 1st respondent- Tahsildar allowed the said application filed by the respondent 3 herein by the impugned order dated 26-10-2005 on the ground that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act and directed that the lands in question shall be entered in the name of the respondent 3 and others jointly. The 1st respondent- Tahsildar allowed the said application filed by the respondent 3 herein by the impugned order dated 26-10-2005 on the ground that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act and directed that the lands in question shall be entered in the name of the respondent 3 and others jointly. The aforesaid order dated 26-10-2005 at Annexure-X is challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. 3. Sri G.S. Vishweswara, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contended that the 1st respondent-Tahsildar has totally misdirected himself while coming to the conclusion inasmuch as, certain facts which are not on record are taken into consideration and that the 1st respondent has proceeded on the ground that the sale deeds in question are contrary to the amended provision of Section 5(3) ofthe Act; that the 1st respondent has not at all taken into consideration the relevant records such as, the order dated 22-1-1996 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 360 of 1994 vide Annexure-K, the order dated 11-4-2002 passed by this Court in W.P, No. 30015 and 30016 of2000 vide Annexure-Q, the orders dated 18-3-2004, 18-5-2004 and 23-2-2005 passed by the Planning Authority vide Annexures-S, V and W respectively and the order dated passed by the State Government vide Annexure-T, approving the change of land use; that the land was re-granted as back as on 6-6-1973 and the sale deeds are executed by the re-grantees after obtaining prior permission from the Competent Authority on 27-3-1973 and therefore, the provisions of the amended Act have no application to the facts of the present case and hence, the impugned order annulling the sale deeds and reverting the lands in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantees is liable to be quashed. Per contra, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil and Sri Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of contesting respondents argued in support of the impugned order. 4. The Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 was drastically amended in the year 1978 by Act No. 13 of 1978 with effect from 7-8-1978. Per contra, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil and Sri Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of contesting respondents argued in support of the impugned order. 4. The Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 was drastically amended in the year 1978 by Act No. 13 of 1978 with effect from 7-8-1978. The provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act read prior to and after amendment in 1978 as under: Before Amendment After Amendment 5(3) The occupancy or the 5(3) The occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may be, re-granted under case may be, re-granted under sub-section (1) shall not be sub-section (1) shall not be transferable otherwise than by transferable otherwise than by partition among members of Hindu partition among members of Hindu Joint Family without the previous Joint Family for a period of fifteen sanction of the Deputy years from the date of Commissioner and such sanction commencement of Section 1 of the shall be granted only on payment Karnataka Village Offices of an amount, equal to fifteen Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978 times the amount of full assessment of the land Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid provision as it stood prior to amendment i.e., as in the year 1973 that the land re-granted should not be transferred without prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner and such sanction shall be made on payment of 15 times of the amount of full assessment of the land. As can be seen from the document produced at Annexure-A, the re-grantees paid 21 times of land revenue assessment, which includes 15 times assessment as was required to be paid by re-grantees for getting permission to alienate. Even otherwise, the respondents have not denied that the petitioners have paid the said amount. After obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional authority to alienate the land in question on 21-6-1973 the re-grantees have executed the sale deeds in favour of the vendors of the petitioners herein. Thus, it is clear from the records that only after getting requisite permission from the Competent Authority, the property was sold by the re-grantees in favour of the Vendors of the petitioners. Thus, it is clear from the records that only after getting requisite permission from the Competent Authority, the property was sold by the re-grantees in favour of the Vendors of the petitioners. It is relevant to note here itself that, by the notification dated 16-8-1967 bearing No. RD 31 MVS 67, issued by the State Government, the powers of Deputy Commissioner under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, were delegated to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. In this case the order at Annexure-E is passed by Assistant Commissioner. Thus, there is absolutely no violation of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act as it stood then i.e., in the year 1973. 5. As the transactions in question took place prior to 1978, the provisions as amended in 1978 are not applicable to the facts of this case. Thus, on reconsidering the material on record I conclude that the sale deeds vide Annexures-C and D and subsequent sale deeds vide Annexures-G and H do not violate the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act as it stood then, inasmuch as the sale deeds vide Annexures-C and D were executed on 27-6-1973 i.e., much prior to the amendment. Thus, the subsequent amendment to Section 5(3) of the Act has got no bearing on the case on hand. 6. The first respondent has also observed in his order that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. If really the petitioners have violated the aforesaid provisions, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to initiate action against the petitioners under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the 1st respondent-Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to annul the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners on the said ground. Moreover, as can be seen from the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-K, the Appellate Tribunal has held that the petitioners have not violated the provisions of Sections 79-A and 80 of the Act. It is also held therein that the petitioners herein are agriculturists and that their income from other sources other than agriculture income does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- per annum. The said order of the Appellate Tribunal has become final, inasmuch as, the same has remained unchallenged. Under such circumstances the order impugned in this writ petition is totally illegal and cannot be sustained. 7. 50,000/- per annum. The said order of the Appellate Tribunal has become final, inasmuch as, the same has remained unchallenged. Under such circumstances the order impugned in this writ petition is totally illegal and cannot be sustained. 7. It is contended on behalf of the contesting respondents 3 to 23 that the petitioners have got an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 3(2) of the Act before the District Judge of the district and that therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The said submission of the respondents cannot be accepted inasmuch as the impugned order is passed under Sections 5(4) and 7 of the Act. The impugned order cannot be said to be an order passed under Section 3(1) of the Act. It is only if the order is passed under Section 3(1) of the Act, the appeal lies to the District Judge under Section 3(2) of the Act. As the impugned order in question is passed under Section 5(4) of the Act, the appeal will not lie before the District Judge. Even otherwise, there is no embargo for this Court to entertain this writ petition, as the order under challenge is totally opposed to law at the first look itself. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order is made: Writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure-X, dated 26-10-2005 in No. HQA.CR(N).23/2002-03 passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore is quashed.