( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the first and third respondents and has prayed for quashing of those orders.

( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is that an extent of 1-12 acres in Sy. No. 26/1c and 1-69 acres in Sy. No. 26/1b situated in Bilinele village were granted in favour of one Sri Devadanam Upadeshi under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the act. The petitioner claims to be a legatee under a Will dated 27-11-1985 executed by late Devadanam Upadeshi, who secured the occupancy right from the Land Tribunal. The Tahsildar made a report to the third respondent about the petitioner being in possession of the land as a legatee under the Will and recommended forfeiture of the land for violation of the conditions provided under Section 61 of the Act. The Assistant commissioner, after hearing the petitioner, passed the order forfeiting the lands to the state under the power vested in him under Section 83 of the Act.

( 3 ) PETITIONER challenged the said order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and contended that the Will is neither a transfer nor an assignment and therefore, there is no contravention of the provisions of Section 61 of the Act and there is no question of any illegal transaction having come into existence, which gives jurisdiction to the Assistant commissioner to declare the transaction illegal. The Appellate tribunal did not accept these contentions and dismissed the appeal.

( 4 ) SRI A. Krishna Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders passed by the karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Assistant Commissioner are without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that a Will is not a transaction as provided under Section 83 of the Act and hence the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to declare the will as an illegal transaction. He further contended that the petitioner is a legatee under the Will and he steps into the shoes of the grantee and his becoming the owner by virtue of the Will is neither by way of an assignment or transfer as provided under section 61 of the Act. He also submitted that Section 21 of the act also is not attracted.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri S. S. Guttal, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the Will is a transaction and also an assignment and hence the original grantee has violated the provisions of Section 61 of the Act and the Assistant commissioner had, therefore, jurisdiction to declare the transaction as illegal.

( 6 ) AFTER considering the arguments addressed on both the sides, the only question to be considered in this writ petition is, whether the Will is a transfer or an assignment under Section 21 or Section 61 of the Act. This Court in Koragappa Gowda v jinnappa Gowda , has held in paras 11 and 12 as follows:"11. A Will includes a codicil and every writing making a voluntary posthumous disposition of property. A Will or testament is the declaration in a prescribed manner of the intention of the person making it, with regard to the matter which he wishes to take effect upon or after his death. (Halsbury's Laws of English, 4th Edn. , Vol. 50, para 201 ). A Will differs from a deed in the following respects; (i) a deed operates eo instanti, i. e. , from the date of its execution; a Will comes into operation on the death of the testator; (ii) a deed is ordinarily irrevocable, unless there is an express power of revocation; a Will can be revoked at any time by the testator during his life time. It is ambulatory and it becomes effective and irrevocable on the death of the testator; (iii) in case of mistake in a deed, the Court has power to rectify it; a Will cannot be rectified by any Court of law. No consideration is required for making a Will. Thus disposition of property takes place posthumously after the death of the