ORDER : 1. These writ petitions are filed by the subsequent purchasers of lands bearing Sy.No.25 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas and Sy.No.34 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas of Alahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk. Admittedly, the aforesaid two lands were ‘Talavari’ Inam lands in the hands of one Sri. Doddachanna and Sri. Anjani @ Anjanappa. Proceedings for regrant of lands was initiated by the Assistant Commissioner in VOA 112/1969-1970 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura SubDivision, Bengaluru, wherein by order dated 03.09.1971, regrant of lands were made in favour of Doddachanna and Anjani. 2. The records would indicate that the grantees Doddachanna and Anjani sold certain bits of lands which were granted in their favour. However, the sale of one of the items which is the subject matter of W.P.No.51707/2014 filed by B.S.Dayananda is concerned, it is with reference to sale of 29 guntas of land in Sy.No.25/1 of Alahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk by Sri. Anjani @ Anjanappa in favour of one Sri. Srinivas Murthy dated 20.12.1967, who subsequently sold the land in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.51707/2014, which admittedly is prior to 03.09.1971, i.e., the date on which regrants were made in favour of Doddachanna and Anjani. However, the sale of remaining extent of land is for different persons. Although the petitioners herein in W.P.No.51914/2014 and W.P.No.53369/2014 are subsequent purchasers of the lands, which were sold by Doddachanna and Anjani initially on 1.10.1971, 25.02.1972 and 15.01.2002, admittedly, all the three sale transactions are subsequent to regrant. However, two of the sales which are dated 1.10.1971 and 25.02.1972 are concerned, they are sales which are subsequent to regrant and before amendment to the provisions of Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short ‘KVOA Act’) coming into force vide Act No.13 of 1978 imposing restriction of non-alienability of land for a period of 15 years. However sale dated 15.01.2002 is subsequent to aforesaid amendment. Infact this sale is subsequent to completion of 15 years of non-alienation period, which is introduced under the amended provisions of KVOA Act. 3. When matter stood as above, the Tahasildhar of Doddaballapur initiated suomoto proceedings in case bearing No.HOA Talari CR 22/7980 and cancelled all the sale transactions with reference to land bearing Sy.Nos. 25 and 34 by order dated 9.7.1982. The same was subject matter of challenge by Sri. 3. When matter stood as above, the Tahasildhar of Doddaballapur initiated suomoto proceedings in case bearing No.HOA Talari CR 22/7980 and cancelled all the sale transactions with reference to land bearing Sy.Nos. 25 and 34 by order dated 9.7.1982. The same was subject matter of challenge by Sri. K. Kempaiah, S/o. Kalappa – purchaser to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.34 under registered sale deed dated 25.01.1972. Writ petition filed by him in W.P.No.41958/1982 came to be allowed by order dated 19.07.1985 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. In the said order, it was observed that the petition filed by the petitioner Sri. K. Kempaiah is required to be considered in the light of the law down in the case of LAKSHMANAGOUDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, reported in 1981 (1) KAR.L.J. PAGE 1 and accordingly, the order passed by the Tahasildhar, Doddaballapur was setaside with certain directions as under: 1. Rule is made absolute. 2. The writ petition is allowed. 3. The impugned order dated 9.7.1982(Annexure-C) passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. 4. The petitioner is directed to pay 15 times the land assessment within three months and get his sale regularized from the Tahsildar, Doddaballapur Taluk. 4. Inspite of the aforesaid order being passed with reference to one of the purchaser, it is seen that the Tahasildhar initiated proceedings against another purchaser Sri. L. Ramaiah in HOA CR 20/1991-1992 dated 29.3.1993, where the purchaser L. Ramaiah S/o. Lingappa was forced to approach this Court by initiating writ proceedings in W.P.No.23057/1991, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court by allowing the said writ petition quashed the notice issued by the Tahasildar and remanded the said matter to the Tahasildhar permitting the purchaser to seek regularization. Based on said observation, he filed an application seeking regularisation, during which period, when the same was pending, it is stated that an enquiry was also initiated on 20th February 1992, which was again challenged in another writ proceedings in W.P.No.6172/1992, which came to be allowed, with a direction to the Tahasildhar for disposing of the matter in accordance with law. It is on the basis of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Tahsildhar by relying upon Lakshmanagouda’s case and the judgment in W.P.No.41985/1992 directed L. Ramaiahpurchaser to pay 15 times the land assessment and regularized the regrant. It is on the basis of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Tahsildhar by relying upon Lakshmanagouda’s case and the judgment in W.P.No.41985/1992 directed L. Ramaiahpurchaser to pay 15 times the land assessment and regularized the regrant. With this sale of two portions of granted land, which was subject matter of sale by Doddachanna in favour of Kempaiah and Patel Lingappa, held to be valid. When matter stood thus, the sale transaction which was held to be regularised was the subject matter of partition in the family of Kempaiah and after the death of Kempaiah, one of the sharer under the partition Smt. Muniyamma sold 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.34 of Alahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk to C.M. Puttarajupetitioner in W.P.No.51914/2014. 5. The sale transactions took place in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.51914/2014 as well as in W.P.No.53369/2014. In the meanwhile, Sri. Anjanappa @ Chikkachennappa filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur SubDivision, Bengaluru, seeking resumption of lands contending the same is in violation of sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 on the premise that the grant made under the KVOA Act is amenable to the provisions of the aforesaid Act and as such he is entitled for resumption of lands. It is seen that the said application was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur SubDivision by his order dated 05.03.2007. Subsequently, Anjani @ Anjanappa and others suppressing all earlier proceedings approached the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru in LND.RA(KVOA)9/2006-2007 and initiated proceedings against the purchasers, wherein the appeal came to be allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru by order dated 7.11.2009, directing restoration of the entire extent of 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.25 and 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.34 of Alahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk in favour of the appellant Anjinappa and three others, which was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court of Principal District Judge, Bengalure Rural District, Bengaluru by Sri. C.M. Puttaraju in Misc. Appeal No.89/2009, which came to be allowed by order dated 08.01.2010 and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, for fresh consideration. 6. However, it is necessary to observe that the order of remand was to consider the case of the appellant Sri. C.M. Puttaraju in Misc. Appeal No.89/2009, which came to be allowed by order dated 08.01.2010 and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, for fresh consideration. 6. However, it is necessary to observe that the order of remand was to consider the case of the appellant Sri. C.M. Puttaraju alone in the said proceedings. But, after remand, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 18.09.2012 has considered the sale transactions in respect of all the persons who have purchased different portions of land mentioned in the said order by holding that the sale deeds executed are valid, which was the subject matter of challenge by the lineal descendants of Barawardar in appeal M.A.No.162/12 before the Prl. District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, wherein the learned District Judge on appreciation of the material available on record held that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 18.09.2012 is erroneous and accordingly the said order passed in LND.RA.9/2006-07 (in the remanded matter) was partly allowed by setting aside the order dated 18.09.2012 in respect of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 viz., Sri. Dayanand, Sri. L. Ramaiah and Smt. Subbamma and confirming the order only in respect of C.M. Puttaraju. In fact, it is only C.M. Puttaraju, who was the beneficiary in getting the order to the effect that the sale made in his favour is valid and the other respondents in the said appeal were forced to approach this Court. 7. It is seen that while passing the order dated 25.09.2014, factual error is committed by the learned Prl. District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in M.A.No.162/2002 by setting aside the sale made in favour of Sri. L. Ramaiah and consequently confirming the same in favour of Sri. C.M. Puttaraju, which is erroneous in itself. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court in three writ petitions. 8. Writ petitions which are filed in W.P.No.51914/2014 and W.P.No.53369/2014 are with reference to some portions of lands which are purchased by the petitioners viz., C.M. Puttaraju and M. Shivashankar, wherein the petitioner Sri. C.M. Puttaraju, is the purchaser of two items of the property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court in three writ petitions. 8. Writ petitions which are filed in W.P.No.51914/2014 and W.P.No.53369/2014 are with reference to some portions of lands which are purchased by the petitioners viz., C.M. Puttaraju and M. Shivashankar, wherein the petitioner Sri. C.M. Puttaraju, is the purchaser of two items of the property. The details of the sale deeds executed by the grantees in favour of different purchasers are referred to in the statement prepared and appended to the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 18.09.2012 at page 3 of the said proceedings, wherein item Nos.1 and 3 are purchased by Sri. C.M. Puttaraju petitioner in W.P.No.51914/2014 and item No.4 is purchased by Shivashankar, who is petitioner in W.P.No.53369/2014 and item No.2 is purchased by the petitioner B.S. Dayananda in W.P.No.51707/2014. For the sake of convenience, the said chart is reproduced in these writ petitions as under: Any Other Language 9. Now all the three matters are taken up for consideration. In the light of the aforesaid fact, admittedly, the three writ petitioners are purchasers of different extent of land in Sy.No.25 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas and Sy.No.34 measuring to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas of Alahalli village, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. Admittedly, the aforesaid two lands are ‘Talavari’ inam lands regranted in favour of Doddachanna and Anjani @ Anjinappa jointly. It is further not in dispute that both of them have sold the entire extent of 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.25 and 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.34 to several people which have ultimately come to the hands of these writ petitioners to the extent shown in the schedule to each of the writ petitions. Now what is to be considered is “whether the order passed by the learned District Judge in M.A.No.162/2012 in challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District in LND.RA.9/2006-2007 dated 18.9.2012 is sustainable in the eye of law?”. 9.1. In this background, when the aforesaid four sale transactions now enured to the benefit of the three writ petitioners are analysed, what could be seen is, the sale with reference to item Nos. 1 and 3 in the chart appended supra is subsequent to the order of grant dated 03.09.1971. 9.1. In this background, when the aforesaid four sale transactions now enured to the benefit of the three writ petitioners are analysed, what could be seen is, the sale with reference to item Nos. 1 and 3 in the chart appended supra is subsequent to the order of grant dated 03.09.1971. Admittedly, as on that date, the provisions of KVOA Act did not impose any restrictions with reference to alienability of granted land. Therefore, those two sale transactions dated 01.10.1971 and 25.02.1972 are subsequent to grant by the grantees in favour of the purchasers. The title to the petitioners herein in respect of said portions cannot be held to be in violation of the said Act and therefore, any finding given above by the learned District Judge while disposing of M.A.No.162/2012 is erroneous and the same is required to be setaside and the sale transaction to the purchasers therein which has enured to the benefit of the petitioners should be accepted and ordered accordingly. 9.2. When it comes to item No 2, with reference to sale transaction in respect of Sy.No.25, admittedly, the same is by Doddachanna and Anjani @ Anjanappa in favour of one T.S. Srinivas Murthy on 20.12.1967, which is prior to 1971 and subsequent to the abolition of KVOA Act coming into force. Therefore, any sale which has taken place during the said period is saved by the judgment of this Court in the case of SYED BHASHEER AHAMED AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, where it is held by the Court that the said sale transactions are saved by holding them as vitiated by estoppel. In that view of the matter, the sale transactions with reference to item No.2 which is prior to the date of grant being made is saved. 9.3 Now coming to item No.4, which is again subject matter of one of the writ petition is with reference to sale transaction which is dated 15.01.2002, i.e., 24 years after the amendment to the provisions of KVOA Act coming into force by Act No.13 of 1978 imposing restriction of 15 years of non-alienation period from the date of the said amendment. If that is taken into consideration, the sale transaction dated 15.01.2002 being after 24 years after the amendment to KVOA Act coming into force in the year 1978, the said sale transaction in also not hit by any of the provisions of the said Act. In that view of the matter, the said sale transaction dated 15.01.2002 is also saved. 9.4 With the aforesaid observations, writ petitions are allowed. The sale of the entire extent of 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.25 and 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.34 of Alahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk in favour of the three writ petitioners, which has cascaded down to them under various sale deeds executed by the grantees Doddachanna and Anjani @ Anjanappa is held to be saved and declared to be legal and valid establishing clear title in their favour.