( 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?