ORDER
Murlidher Rao, J.
1. The State of Karnataka has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar, Parasgad Taluk dated 29-2-1980, which is affirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge, Belgaum in Appeal No. 17 of 1980.
2. A few facts that need mention are as follows : Land bearing Block No. 233 measuring 6 acres 12 guntas (1/3rd share) of Hulikatti village, Saundatti Taluk, is a Talwarki Inam land. As a consequence of the abolition of village offices, the inam land stood vested in the State Government on 1-2-1963. Though the holder of the inam land made an application for re-grant, there is no dispute that there is no order of re-grant in favour of the holder of the office. On 5-4-1973 the land has been sold in favour of the 1st respondent. The Tahsildar initiated proceedings for summary eviction under Section 7 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. In those proceedings, it was contended by the 1st respondent that notwithstanding the fact that there is no re-grant order in favour of the holder of the inam office, yet he is entitled to the regrant as per Section 7 of the Act which stood before 7-8-1978.
3. Section 7 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, as it then stood, reads thus :
'7. EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED HOLDER AND REGRANT TO HIM IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES OF LAND RESUMED UNDER Section 4--
(1) where any land resumed under Clause (sic) of Section 4 is in the possession of an unauthorised holder, such unauthorised bolder, shall be summarily evicted therefrom by the Deputy Commissioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Code :
Provided that where in the case of any unauthorised holder, the Deputy Commissioner after enquiry is of opinion that in view of the investment made by such holder in the development of the land or in the non-agricultural use of the land or for any other reason, the eviction of such holder from the land will involve undue hardship on him, he shall regrant the land to such bolder on payment of such amount and, subject to Sub-section (3) of Section 5, on such terms and conditions as the State Government may determine.
(2) A land which is not re-granted under Sub section (1) shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules and orders made thereunder applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated land.'
By Act No. 13 of 1978 an amendment was introduced and Section 7 was substituted by a new Section. Section 5 of the Amendment Act reads thus :
'5. SAVINGS. -- All pending applications and proceedings relating to regrant of land to unauthorised holders under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the principal Act as it stood prior to the commencement of this Act shall not have effect and shall abate.'
Though the Amendment Act was published in Karnataka Gazette on 7-8-1978, never the less Sub-section (2) of Section 1 provided that Sections 2, 3 and Section 7A in Section 4 shall come into force at once and the other provisions shall be deemed to have come into force on the twenty-fourth day of December 1975.
4. The Savings section extracted above is Section 5 in the Amendment Act which came into force on 24-12-1975. The effect of this provision is that on and after 24-12-1975, no re-grant order shall be made under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the unamended Act. The Tahsildar has passed the order on 26-2-1980. He has relied upon Section 6 of the Mysore General Clauses Act and has passed the order under the unamended Act regranting the land in favour of the 1st respondent. This order was challenged by the State in Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 1980. The learned District Judge has concurred with the reasoning of the Tahsildar and has held that notwithstanding the fact that there is no regrant order in favour of the vendor, nevertheless, the 1st respondent was entitled to get a re-grant order under sub-section-1 Section 7 of the Act. as it stood before the amendment.
5. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the District Judge and the Tahsildar could have passed an order of re-grant in favour of respondent-1 by placing reliance on Section 6 of the General Clauses Act notwithstanding the fact that Section 5 of Act No 13 of 1978 had come into force on 2442-1975
6. It appears to me that both the Tahsildar as well as the District Judge have committed an error in appreciating the provisions of the Amendment Act. By Act 13 of 1978 it was specifically stated that all pending applications made under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 shall not have effect and shall abate after the coming into force of that section. As mentioned above Section 5 of Act 13 of 1978 came into force on 24-12-1975. Therefore, if no orders are passed on the pending applications before 24-12-1975, all those applications have to abate, which necessarily means that no orders could be passed on those applications. In the instant case, undisputedly there is no regrant order in favour of the holder of the office. Therefore the principle of law laid down in Lakshmanagouda v. State of Karnataka, ILR (Karnataka) 1981(2) 892 = 1981(1) KLJ 1 cannot be made applicable. In the circumstances, the Tahsildar was not justified in passing a regrant order in favour of the 1st respondent by invoking Sub-section (1) of Section 7 as it stood before the amendment. The reasoning adopted by the Tahsildar and the District Judge cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the legislature has categorically stated that all applications shall abate. It is not possible to reconcile the effect of Section 5 of Act 13 of 1978 with that of the reasoning adopted by the District Judge as well as the Tahsildar. In view of this specific provision, resort to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was unwarranted.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that the view taken by the Tahsildar, as affirmed by the District Judge, cannot be sustained and the application filed by 1st respondent, to regrant the land in his favour was liable to be rejected. The summary eviction proceedings, which were initiated by the Tahsildar, have to be continued and appropriate orders are required to be passed.
8. In the result I make the following order :
i) Rule is made absolute.
ii) Writ Petition is allowed.
iii) Impugned orders at Annexures A and B are quashed.
iv) The Tahsildar, Parasgad Taluk, is directed to proceed with the proceedings under Section 7 of the KVO Act for summary eviction and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(v) No Costs.