ORDER : The petitioners, in one set of writ petitions, have called in question the orders by the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Sub-Division, Shimoga declaring that the corresponding sale deeds in favour of the petitioners purchasers are null and void for violation of the provisions of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and the subsequent orders by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) in the Revenue Appeals filed by the petitioners dismissing the appeals confirming the orders of the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioners in the other set of writ petitions have impugned the change in the revenue entries for some of the subject properties in the name of the petitioners’ vendors after the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and during the pendency of the Revenue Appeals before the Tribunal. WP 40447/2018 & WP 53006/2016: 2. The petitioner, who is common in both these petitions, has purchased a total extent of 9 acres 22 guntas in Sy.Nos.2/1P1, 3/P2, 142/2 and 145 of Urgadoor village, Shivamogga Taluk under the sale deed dated 08.12.2006. The Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division, Shivamogga by the impugned order dated 25.02.2011 has declared this sale deed null and void for the violation of the provisions of Section 79A and B of Act. The Tribunal by the other impugned order dated 30.11.2017 has confirmed the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 25.02.2011 with the dismissal of the petitioner’s Revenue Appeal in No.348/2011. Meanwhile, the authorities have transferred the revenue entry for the land in Sy.No.3/P2 in favour of the petitioner’s vendors, and as such these two writ petitions are filed. W.P.NO.40445/2018 & W.P.NO.53008/2016: 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.40445/2018 has purchased a total extent of 10 acres 38 guntas in Sy.Nos.140/2, 136/04, 2/1P, 139, 140/1, 140/1P, 5/2 and 7/P1 of Urgadoor village, Shivamogga Taluk under the sale deeds dated 14.2.2006, 14.12.2006 and 15.03.2007. The petitioner has also purchased a total extent of 3 acres 20 guntas, excluding 5 guntas of kharab, in Sy.No.5/2 of Urgadoor village, Shivamogga Taluk under the sale deed dated 08.12.2006. The Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division, Shivamogga by the impugned order dated 25.02.2011 has declared these sale deeds null and void for violation of the provisions of Section 79A and B of Act. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 has confirmed the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 25.02.2011 with the dismissal of the petitioner’s Revenue Appeal in No.340/2011. The Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division, Shivamogga by the impugned order dated 25.02.2011 has declared these sale deeds null and void for violation of the provisions of Section 79A and B of Act. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 has confirmed the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 25.02.2011 with the dismissal of the petitioner’s Revenue Appeal in No.340/2011. Meanwhile, the authorities have transferred the revenue entry for the land in Sy.No.5/2 in favour of the vendors. 4. The petitioner has purchased a total extent of 9 acres 38 guntas in Sy.Nos.147/1, 147/3, 142/1, 140/3, 138, 146, 147/2, 136 and 145 of Urgadoor village, Shivamogga Taluk under the sale deeds dated 7.12.2006, 11.12.2006, 27.11.2006 and 6.12.2006. The petitioner has also purchased an extent of 1 acre 28 guntas in Sy.No.145/1 of Urgadoor village, Shivamogga Taluk under the sale deed dated 27.11.2006. The Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division, Shivamogga by the impugned order dated 25.02.2011 has declared these sale deeds null and void for violation of the provisions of Section 79A and B of Act. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 has confirmed the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 25.02.2011 with the dismissal of the petitioner’s Revenue Appeal in No.339/2011. Meanwhile, the authorities have transferred the revenue entry for the land in Sy.No.145/1 in favour of the vendors. 5. The petitioners, upon service of service of the proposed proceedings under Section 79A and B of the Act, have appeared and filed their version enclosing certain documents/ certificates, including the certificates to show that the petitioners and their family members hold agricultural lands in their native village and their income from nonagricultural sources is within the limit. The Tahsildar, prior to the initiation of the proceedings by the Assistant Commissioner, has written to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioners in the respective District/State to confirm that the petitioners/their family members own agricultural lands as stated by the petitioners. However, there is no response and thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, drawing adverse inference because the concerned Deputy Commissioners did not respond on the authenticity of the Certificates produced, has concluded that the petitioners with their limited income could not have purchased the subject properties for substantial consideration. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Assistant Commissioner could not have declared the sale deeds null and void for either of the reasons. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Assistant Commissioner could not have declared the sale deeds null and void for either of the reasons. The petitioners’ case that they hail from agricultural families and their income from nonagricultural sources is less than the limit should have been examined in the light of the records available viz., copies of the documents/certificates produced by the petitioners. The Assistant Commissioner could not have drawn adverse inference merely because there is no response. The petitioners therefore have preferred the respective revision appeals. The Tribunal, without any basis and without opportunity to the petitioners, has dismissed the petitioners’ appeals confirming the Assistant Commissioner’s orders inferring that the petitioners’ employers have purchased the properties in the petitioners’ names. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that this Court in some of these writ petitions has granted stay, and during the pendency of these petitions, the provisions of Sections 79A and B, C and 80 are deleted by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 and this is followed by Circular/Official Memorandum clarifying that with the change in law, all pending proceedings abate and the revenue entries must be restored in the name of the purchasers. The petitions against the Assistant Commissioner’s order being pending before this Court, the petitioners would be entitled for relief accordingly. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that during the pendency of the revision appeals before the Tribunal, the revenue authorities could not have changed the revenue entries for any of the subject properties relying upon the orders that were subject matter of appeal filed in exercise of the statutory right of appeal. Even otherwise, the revenue entries under the erstwhile provisions of the Act, could not have restored the revenue entries in favour of the vendors. As such, the petitioners have impugned the change in the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners’ vendors during the pendency of revenue appeals before the Tribunal. 9. Even otherwise, the revenue entries under the erstwhile provisions of the Act, could not have restored the revenue entries in favour of the vendors. As such, the petitioners have impugned the change in the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners’ vendors during the pendency of revenue appeals before the Tribunal. 9. Sri Vinod Kumar M, learned Additional Government Advocate does not controvert the circumstances relied upon by the petitioners or the canvass that the revenue entries for some of the subject properties could not be changed in the name of the petitioners’ vendors because consequence of the breach of the provisions of the Section 79A and B Act, even if any, would be forfeiture of the lands and the land cannot revert back to the vendors. Sri Vinod Kumar also does not controvert that the petitioners’ case will have to be examined in the light of the change in law. 10. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal are based on the two circumstances emphasized by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz,. the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioners of corresponding District/States have not responded to the Tahsildar’s communication for confirmation of genuineness of the Certificates produced by the petitioners and that there could be an inference that the petitioners’ employers have purchased the subject properties in the petitioners’ name because the petitioners’ income is below the limits and they have no justifiable source of income. However, inferences cannot be drawn unless law provides for such inferences, is justified by the material on record and necessary opportunity is accorded to rebut the possible inference. The inference that the petitioners’ employers have purchased the subject lands in the petitioners’ names is not without opportunity to the petitioners to rebut the same. Therefore, none of the impugned orders can be sustained. 11. Insofar as the abatement of the proceedings, because it is seen that this Court has not granted interim orders in all these petitions and the details of the status as of today for these lands, where there is no stay, are available, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioners to file representations with the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division, Shivamogga for issuance of appropriate endorsement and updating the revenue records, while calling upon the Assistant Commissioner to consider the same without reference to the impugned orders quashed. Therefore, the following ORDER [A] The petitions are allowed. Therefore, the following ORDER [A] The petitions are allowed. The impugned orders by the Assistant Commissioner in 1) No. LRF:79A,79B Viva 16, 18, 24, 27/201910 dated 25.02.2011 2) No. LRF:79A,79B VIVA 17, 21, 22, 19, 32 / 201910 dated 25.02.2011 3) No. LRF:79A,79B VIVA 20, 23, 25, 19, 26, 30, 31 / 201910 dated 25.02.2011 and by the Tribunal in 1 )Appeal No. 348/ 2011 dated 30.11.2017, 2) Appeal No. 340/ 2011 dated 30.11.2017 and 3) Appeal No.339/2011 dated 30.11.2017 are quashed. The petitioners are given liberty to submit detailed representations enclosing a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order with the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division, Shivamogga the first respondent, who shall consider the same in the light of the observations made herein, and [B] The first respondent shall take appropriate decision and issue necessary endorsement to the petitioner in accordance with law within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representations from the petitioner.