( 1 ) NOTICING the conflict of opinion between two single Bench judgments of this Court in Boregowda v. Special Deputy Commissioner, ILR 1990 Kant 489 and S. Billigowda v. Deputy Commissioner, ILR 1991 Kant 4369, regarding the ambit, scope and interpretation of Rule 5 (2) of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1985 (for short, 'the Rules' ). The learned single Judge has referred the following question of law for the consideration of the larger Bench :"whether under Rule 5 (2) of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979, it has been open or not to the Appellate Authority, that is, the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss the appeal on merits or whether only course open and available was either to adjourn the appeal or to dismiss for default only?"

( 2 ) ). R-1 to R-3 have no interest in the lis as they are statutory authorities. R-4 to R-6, the private contesting respondents did not appear inspite of service. We requested the Government Advocate to assist us on their behalf.

( 3 ) RULE 5 of the Rules reads as under :"5. Manner of disposal of appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. (1) The Deputy Commissioner shall issue a notice to the parties informing them that the appeal shall be heard on such date and at such time and place as specified therein. (2) If the appellant does not appear on the date fixed for hearing or any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Deputy Commissioner may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. (3) Where the appellant appears and the respondent does not appear on such date as specified in the notice, the appeal may heard ex parte. (4) The appellant or respondent as the case (may) be aggrieved by an order passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) may prefer an application along with an affidavit within thirty days from the date of said order to set aside the same. If the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant or the respondent, as the case may be, was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before him on the said date, he shall as the case may be, readmit the appeal or set aside the ex parte order on such term as to costs as he thinks fit. (5) The Deputy Commissioner may call for and obtain records of the case in which appeal is preferred from the Assistant Commissioner. (6) On the date fixed or to any other date to which the appeal may (be) adjourned, the Deputy Commissioner shall after hearing the parties or their agents, pass such orders on the appeal as he deems fit. "

( 4 ) IN the case of Boregowda v. Special Deputy Commissioner, ILR 1990 Kant 489, after exhaustively considering the provisions of Rule 5 (2) to (6), a single Judge opined and laid down that under Rule 5 (2), the only course open to the Deputy Commissioner in the case of absence of the appellant, is that, he may either adjourn the appeal or dismiss the appeal for default. A decision on merits or dismissal on merits is not contemplated. In the other case namely S. Billigowda v. Deputy Commissioner (ILR 1991 Kant 4369), supra another single Judge expressed the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 5 (2) is not prevented from considering the appeal on merits even in the absence of the appellant. He expressed his disagreement with the view taken in Boregowda's case, supra.

( 5 ) IN the present case the writ petitioners were not present before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore when their Appeal No. LND (SC/st) 29/91-92 was taken up for consideration. Instead of dismissing the appeal in default or adjourning the same for some other date, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order Annexure- 'e' dismissing the appeal on merits of the dispute. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner being final the writ petition was filed before this Court challenging the same on the ground that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to proceed and decide the appeal on m