P.D. Dinakaran, CJ.

The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us.

2. Heard both sides.

3. TheTahsildar, Heggadadevanakote - the 5th respondent by endorsement notification dated 29.7.2008 issued under Section 83(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 found that the petitioner is carrying on a resort in the revenue land bearing Sy. No.32 of Gandathur Village, Heggadadevanakote Taluk to an extent of 3 acres is being used for a resort viz., non-agricultural purpose unauthorisedly and therefore locked and sealed the cottages therein and the same was challenged by the petitioner-appellant herein in Writ Petition No. 11893 of 2008.

4.1. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner was in possession of the said 3 acres of land in Sy. No.32 of Gandathur Village, Heggadadevanakote Taluk even though the same admittedly belongs to the Government. As an unauthorised occupant of the said land, the petitioner's wife filed an application on 14.4.1999 for regularising her occupation presumably under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act read with Rule 108-CC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. The petitioner who was able to get a no objection certificate dated 14.3.1999 from Gram Panchayat also successfully got the electricity service connection and telephone connection in the name of his wife. But after her death the petitioner also filed another application on 16.8.2005 under Section 94-A for regularisation of the above land in his name before the Committee concerned constituted under Section 94-B read with Rule 108-CC.

4.2. It is brought to our notice through relevant records the impugned land was already granted to one Kalegowda s/o Doddakari Gowda of the same village by the Committee constituted under Section 94-A read with Rule 108-D by proceedings dated 7.12.1992. After her death, the petitioner made a representation on 16.8.2005 to bring him as a legal representative of the deceased wife Shahnaz Fatima to the proceedings initiated under Section 94-B read with Rule 108-CC and requested to regularise his occupation with reference to the impugned land. On the strength of the above electricity service connection and telephone connection the petitioner also filed an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records and got the revenue sketch prepared showing the impugned land is in his occupation and was successful in getting the mutation entries in his favour.

4.3. However, the same was cancelled by proceedings dated 15.7.2006 by Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, H.D. Kote of course after giving him an opportunity and considering his explanation, in the meeting of the Taluk Panchayat Committee on 26.5.2006. Accordingly, Katha granted in favour of his wife was cancelled by proceedings dated 15.7.2006 which was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16061 of 2006 and his Court by order dated 20.3.2007 quashed the said proceedings dated 15.7.2006 and the matter was remitted to the Taluk Panchayat with a direction to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner who is the legal representative of the deceased Shahnaz Fatima on the ground that the said order dated 15.7.2007 was passed against the petitioner's wife Shahnaz Fatima, who had already died and without hearing the petitioner.

4.4. Pursuant to the said proceedings the Taluk Panchayat by proceedings dated 18.6.2007 directed the petitioner as well as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat to maintain status quo until a decision is taken by the Committee constituted under Section 94-A read with Rule 108-CC. In the meanwhile, having come to know that the petitioner is using the impugned agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose viz., running a resort, the Tahsildar issued the present impugned endorsement notice dated 21.7.2008. Hence the present writ petition viz., Writ Petition No. 11893 of 2008.

5. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's wife had already