ORDER : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. The petitioner has called into question the order dated 9-12-2014 (Annexure-F) passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Section 6 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('KVOA Act' for short). The facts of the case in brief are that one Venkatesh, brother of the respondent 4 had availed of financial assistance from the KSFC. He had mortgaged the Site bearing No. 119 measuring 26 guntas carved out of the land at Survey No. 402/1 of Mangalvarpet Village, Channapatna Taluk. On account of his committing default in the payment of the amounts, the said property was brought to auction. The petitioner is an auction purchaser. KSFC executed the sale deed, dated 22-12-1993 (Annexure-A) in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of 10 guntas standing at adjoining Survey No. 403 filed an application under Section 6 of the KVOA Act for the re-grant of the land. On the said application being turned down by the Deputy Commissioner, this petition is filed. 2. Sri Srinivas V., the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the boundaries as shown by the KSFC in the sale deed, the petitioner has become the owner of the 10 guntas of land also. He submits that in case of conflict between the boundary and the measurement, boundary has to prevail over the measurement. He submits that as the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of the authorized holder, it has made an application for the regrant of the land. He maintains that the entries in the record of rights clearly show that the land at Survey No. 403 is also an inam land. 3. Sri J.S. Halashetti, the learned Counsel for the respondent 4 submits that the sale deed, dated 22-12-1993 (Annexure-A) executed by K.S.F.C. in favour of the petitioner states that what is sold to the petitioner is Site No. 119 measuring 26 guntas out of the land carved at Sy. No. 402/1. Now the petitioner is agitating for 10 guntas situated in the land standing at Sy. No. 403 which was never sold to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has encroached 10 guntas of the land at Sy. No. 403 belonging to the respondent 4. 4. No. 402/1. Now the petitioner is agitating for 10 guntas situated in the land standing at Sy. No. 403 which was never sold to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has encroached 10 guntas of the land at Sy. No. 403 belonging to the respondent 4. 4. He brings to my notice the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Channapatna in C.C. No. 26 of 1995. The said Judicial Magistrate, on considering the materials placed on the record, has delivered the finding that it is the petitioner who made the attempt to encroach the land bearing Sy. No. 403 belonging to the family of the fourth respondent. He also brings to my notice the Tahsildar's report at Annexure-D drawn after holding the joint survey. The said report states that the K.S.F.C. had encroached 10 guntas of land at Sy. No. 403. The said report of the Tahsildar was challenged by the petitioner by filing M.A. No. 1 of 2012 before the District and Sessions Court, Ramanagara. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order/report of the Tahsildar, dated 21-10-2011. He also brings to my notice that the petitioner filed O.S. No. 182 of 2013 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent 4. The petitioner had filed I.A. No. 1 in the said suit proceedings invoking Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. While disposing of the said I.A., the Civil Court has formed the considered view that 10 guntas of land at Sy. No. 403 belonging to the fourth respondent is encroached by the petitioner. It therefore granted the temporary injunction as sought by the petitioner/plaintiff but with the liberty to take action for taking the possession of the property by the fourth respondent following the due process of law. 5. Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 submits that if it is the case of the petitioner that the boundaries prevail over the measurement, then there would not have been any need for the petitioner to make the application under Section 6 of the KVOA Act. 6. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. 7. No material whatsoever is placed on the record to show that the petitioner has become the owner of the 10 guntas of land standing at Sy. No. 403. 6. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. 7. No material whatsoever is placed on the record to show that the petitioner has become the owner of the 10 guntas of land standing at Sy. No. 403. On the contrary, the sale deed, dated 22-12-1993 (Annexure-A) shows that what was sold to the petitioner was only Site No. 119 measuring 26 guntas in the land at Sy. No. 402/1. If the petitioner proposes to contend that what is sold to him is 36 guntas and not 26 guntas as revealed by the sale deed, its remedy would be to seek the appropriate declaratory relief at the hands of the Competent Civil Court. 8. It is also worthwhile to notice that the petitioner has not approached the K.S.F.C. for the execution of any rectification deed. It is not even shown that the 10 guntas of land at Sy. No. 403 was indeed mortgaged to the K.S.F.C. When it was not mortgaged to the K.S.F.C., the question of selling the same by K.S.F.C. to any auction purchaser would not arise at all. It is trite that the purchaser's rights cannot be higher or better than those of his vendor. 9. The findings written by the Revenue Authorities, Civil Court and Criminal Court clearly indicate that the petitioner has encroached 10 guntas of land. 10. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of 'authorized holder' as defined by Section 2(1)(b) of the KVOA Act. Thus, not finding any merit in this petition, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.