( 1 ) ON an apparent conflict between the views expressed by the Division Benches of the Court in Laxmamma v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 1 Kant LJ 417 : (AIR 1983 Kant 237) and in Bhagi Hengsu v. Rocy Lasrado, ILR 1991 Kant 2375, this writ petition has been referred to a Larger Bench by Justice Tilhari to resolve the conflict after framing the following questions to be answered. Namely:" (1) Whether in view of Sections 4 and 11, of Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979, Rule 29-A, introduced in the Karnataka Land Grant Rules stands obliterated from the backdate (Retrospectively) and is to be deemed to have stood obliterated and ineffective, namely, it stood obliterated from the date it was introduced and particularly, on the date when the transaction in question dated 22-3-1977, was entered into? (2) Whether the transaction dated 22-3-1977, which was in breach of Rule 21 of the Board's Standing Order as operative on the date of the grant, that is, 25-6-1939, and can the conditions be deemed to be existing on the date, that is the day transaction of sale was being entered into or the condition under Rule 21, is to be deemed to be inoperative on 22-3-1977, in view of Rule 29-A? (3) What is the effect of Sections 4 and 11 of the Act, with reference to Rule 29-A, whether it has the effect of reviving those conditions which prohibited transfer of granted land in favour of any person, except the member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe?"

( 2 ) ). The brief facts of the case are as follows :10 cents of Government land situate in erstwhile Madras State was granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste under Rule 21 of the Rules framed under the Madras Board Standing Orders on 24-6-1939. The said grant contained a clause which stated, inter alia, that an alienation of the granted land to any person other than to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe would invalidate the grant. The particular clause reads as follows :" (12) That alienation of the land without the sanction of Government to anyone other than scheduled class member shall invalidate the grant. "

( 3 ) ON 7-1-1961 the said property was gifted by the grantee to his daughter also a member of the Scheduled Caste, subsequently she transferred her rights on 22-3-1977 to a Mohammedan and by successive assignments it has come to vest with the petitioner on 19-2-1982. The first ever transfer to a person who did not belong to the Scheduled Caste took place in 1977. On 1-1-1979, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was brought into force. On the ground that the transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner is null and void, proceedings were initiated under Section 5 thereof to resume the land from the possession of the petitioner. The said proceedings have culminated in the impugned orders.

( 4 ) AFTER the framing of the Mysore Land Grants Rule in 1968 under Section 197 of the Karnataka Land Grant Act, 1964, the above said Rules framed under the Madras Board Standing Orders stood repealed.

( 5 ) RULE 40 thereof stated as under :"40. Repeal and Savings 1. All rules corresponding to the foregoing rules in force in Bombay area, Coorg District, Hyderabad area, Madras area and Mysore area are hereby repealed :provided that the repeal shall not affect- (a) the previous operation of any rule so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any rule so repealed; (c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any breach of or any offence committed against any rule so repealed; or (d) any investigation or legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid and any legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if such rule had no