1. There was a time when legal profession was practiced in proper, efficient committed manner. It is only because of this nature of practice of the profession, the profession earned the name that it is a noble profession.

2. Whether it is still being practiced in the same manner, whether it can still command the reputation of being a noble profession are all matters highly doubtful because of the present developments not only in the society, but also in the legal system. While all systems may comprise quality people, good professionals perhaps there may be more number of persons, who are to the contrary!

3. Ultimately it is the number of quality people who matter more and it is their ability and a sense of commitment that sustains any profession.

4. Litigation has proliferated over a period of time and in this country, though there was a traditional conventional dispute resolution system before the advent of the foreign powers and their rule on and after our country was annexed by the Britishers, who for the first time brought the entire country under a common code and more for protecting their interests and to perpetuate their rule in our country, imposed their own methods and legal system on the people in our country and while there may be many beneficial systems which had been brought about by the Britishers, not all systems and procedure introduced by them have proved to be for the benefit of our Society, particularly, as the main object of the foreign rule was to protect their own interests and to perpetuate their authoritarian rule on the people in this country and therefore. It is not necessary that all systems imposed by the Britishers augured well for our people. The English Legal System is one of the legacies of the foreign rule and though there were other disputes resolution systems in our country which one can infer on an examination of the legal history in this country the adversary English Legal System which was more or less uniformly imposed in this country except for the princely states has been continued even after independence and is the legal system that prevails throughout the country as of now.

5. Our country becoming a republic and with our own Constitution on and after 1950 has not made much difference to this position and the adversary English Legal System rules roost!

6. While there may be some beneficial aspects from such a legal system, we have been left in a state of confusion in further developing our own legal system particularly, after the country became a republic and the result of this confusion is the hybrid legal system which is neither here nor there and more often than not has resulted as an obstacle in developing and improving our legal system to suit the needs of our people our society! The English Legal System being essentially an adversary Legal System the principles and practices in this system is employed even while examining matters under the constitutional jurisdiction.

7. Unfortunately not much thought has been bestowed to the aspect as to whether the adversary English Legal System should be continued as such and should be the basis for examining matters brought before the superior courts in this country under the constitutional jurisdiction.

8. In consonance with the object and the goal of our constitution, legislature has ushered in, many social welfare legislatures such as the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PTCL Act’) meant for protecting the interests of people belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities particularly, to save the government lands granted to such socially and economically deprived class of persons for bestowing on them a source of livelihood to make them independent economically and thereby improve their social status by carrying on agricultural avocation with which they are conversant, so that they do not revert to their earlier statuts of penur