The main legal point established is that under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, tenants lawfully cultivating the land as lessees prior to the abolition of the Inam are entitled to claim occupancy rights under the provisions of the Act.

( 1 ) THE order dated Nil of the Land tribunal, Honnali, passed in its proceeding no. LRC-11/74-75 (Ex. C.) is being challenged in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of india by one Narayan Rao who was the opponent before the Tribunal in the said proceeding. Thimmappa (second respondent herein) was the applicant before the Tribunal having filed an application in Form No. 7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the Act) claiming occupancy rights in respect of an agricultural land situated in Sy. No. 37 measuring 7 acres 30 guntas of village Balleswara, Honnali taluk. Narayana Rao had contested the claim. By the impugned order the Tribunal has upheld Thimmappa's claim and has directed that he be conferred with occupancy rights over the land in question.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the land in question was Patel Umbli land (Village office Inam ). The said Inam was abolished on the coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act of 1961) and the land was regranted to narayana Rao under S. 5 of the said act

( 3 ) WHILE challenging the validity of the impugned order mainly three grounds were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, he contended that the Tribunal has not held a proper enquiry. Secondly, he contended that since the land has been re-granted in favour of Narayana Rao under the provisions of the Act of 1961, whatever rights Thimmappa may have had in the land had been wiped out, and therefore, he could not claim that he was a tenant entitled to occupancy rights. Lastly, he contended that even otherwise, since ho valid lease could have been cr. eated in respect of village Office Inam, Thimmappa could not be said to have obtained a valid lease from Narayana Rao earlier to the abolition of the village office and cannot therefore be said to be activating the land in question as a lawful tenant and claim occupancy right on that basis under the provision of the Act.

( 4 ) ON the other hand Counsel for the second respondent supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that there were no grounds to interfere with the same.

( 5 ) ONE other ground, though mentioned in the petition, has not been urged, end, in my opinion, rightly so, by the Counsel for the petitioner. It has teen stated that notice issued by the Tribunal in form No. 9 to Narayana rao was itself contrary to law and the enquiry started on the basis of such a notice was vitiated. However, in view cf the subsequent amendment of the act by Act No. 27 of 1976 this ground does not survive. Not merely form No 9 has been suitably amended, but notices issued in forms No. 8 and 9 have been validated with retrospective effect (S. 6 of the Act No. 27/76 ).

( 6 ) THERE is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since this Patel Umbli land has been regranted to Narayana rao under the provisions of the Act of 1981, Thimmappa, whatever might have been his rights or interests in the laid previously, cannot, subsequent to the regrant in favour of Narayana Rao, claim any tenancy right, and consequently occupancy right under the act. may be noted. "the main object with which the karnataka Village Offices Abolition act was brought into force was to abolish hereditary rights to village offices and the emlouments appertaining to such offices. This Act, unlike other Inams Abolition Acts, does not provide for conferment of ownership or occupancy rights in favour of tenants and other inferior holders. On the other hand, that act envisages the continuation of sucn leases, if any, existing on the date of vesting. The relationship between the regrantees and their tenants would be governed by the existing tenancy laws. The rights of all those lawfully cultivating as tenants under the holder of the village office, the authorised holder, and under certain circumstances, the unauthorised holder, are saved even after the vesting and re-granting of th