The main legal point established in the judgment is that procedural provisions under a repealed regulation cannot be invoked after the enactment of a new law, as interpreted under Section 202(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal has been referred to a Full Bench for resolving a short question as to whether, after the enactment of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by which the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899 were repealed, an application can still be filed under Regulation 127 of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899, 18 years after such repeal.

( 2 ) FEW relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at the out-set. The appellants are the original writ petitioners who filed Writ Petition No. 4797/83 in this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 7-2-1983 passed by the 3rd respondent - the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, Madikeri. By the said order, the 3rd respondent entertained the application filed under Regulation 127 of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899, and observed that partition of the concerned lands, which were privilege jama bane lands, can be effected. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that such an application was maintainable. He, however, partly allowed the writ petition on the ground that while exercising the jurisdiction under Regulation 127 of the said Regulations, the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 3 herein, could not have himself effected the partition and should have appointed arbitrators for doing the said work.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned single Judge had patently erred in law in taking the view that the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899, survived and Regulation 127 thereof could be still resorted to, almost 18 years after it was repealed by the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. He also submitted that for taking the aforesaid view, the learned single Judge has relied upon the decision of this Court in Nandinaravanda Medappa v. Nandinaravanda Ganapathy reported in (1979) 2 Kant L J 22. It was submitted that Regulation 127 was a procedural provision. It was not saved by Section 202 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties on these aspects. Having given our consideration to the arguments advanced before us, we have reached the conclusion that the learned single Judge, with respect, was in error when he took the view that despite the repealing of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899, in 1964, application under Regulation 127 of the said Regulations could be filed and that the application dated 24-6-1982 filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was maintainable before the authorities which could function under the repealed Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899. The reasons are obvious. Regulation 127 read as under:"127. Power to refer to arbitration. (1) A Revenue Officer may, with the consent of the parties, refer to arbitration any dispute arising before him in any matter under this Regulation. (2) The Assistant Commissioner may, without the consent of the parties, refer to arbitration any dispute arising before him under this Regulation with respect to- (a) any matter of which an entry is to be made in any record or register under Chapter VI; or (b) the limits of any estates or of any holding, field or other portion of an estate; or (c) the property to be divided at a partition or the mode of making partition. "it is found in Chapter XI dealing with arbitration. A mere look at the said provision shows that it was a procedural provision. It may be conveniently read with Regulation 145 of the said Regulations found in Chapter XII which dealt with supplemental provisions. Regulation 145 dealt with bar of suits in certain matters and provided that except as otherwise provided by this Regulation, no suit shall be brought in any Civil Court in respect of any of the following matters, namely, (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (xv) any claim for the partition of an estate or holding or any question as to the allotment of land, when suc