N.K. Jain, C.J.--A learned Single Judge of this Court not agreeing with the reasoning of the Full Bench has made this Reference vide order dated 7.12.1999 in Writ Petition No. 22025 of 1999 to a larger Bench observing that the Full Bench has not considered the relevant Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978 (for short 'the 1978 Amendment Act') in the case of Syed Bhasheer Ahamed and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1994 Kant 227 and the decision of the Full Bench is 'per incuriam' and has therefore, requested the Chief Justice to place the matter before a Larger Bench to reconsider the decision of the Full Bench. Thus, vide order dated 9.7.2002, passed by the Chief Justice, this Reference is placed before us on 12.8.2002.

2. The necessary facts leading to the Reference, as stated by the learned Counsel, are:

The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22025 of 1998 claiming to be an agriculturist and resident of Malebennur, is alleged to have purchased totally 4 acres 26 guntas of lands in Sy. No. 38, i.e., 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 38, 0.26 guntas of land in Sy. No. 38/1 and 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 38/1 of Halivana village in Harihar taluk, by registered sale deeds on 31.3.1975 in respect of the first transaction and on 13.5.1978 in respect of the other two and to be in actual possession and cultivation of the same as owner. It is alleged that the said transactions were effected after regranting of land on 14.12.1973 in favour of the holder, before the 1978 Amendment Act came into force on 7.8.1978 and there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Principal Act') in so far as purchase of land by the Petitioner is concerned.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner on the letter written by Assistant Commissioner has without issuing notice and without hearing the Petitioner passed an order on 7.6.1999 (Annexure-E) forfeiting the land in question to the State Government holding that there is violation of Section 5 (2), (3) and (4) of the Act and the Petitioner is an unauthorised holder of the land under Section 7 of the Act. The Petitioner submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and contrary to the decision of the Full Bench in Syed Basheer Ahamed's case and thus seeks for a direction to quash Annexure-E dated 7.6.1999 passed by Respondent No. 2.

Statement of objections is filed on behalf of the Respondents denying the averments and stating that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the lands, which were purchased by the Petitioner, were originally classified as Adikarnataka Service Inam Lands and under the relevant provisions of law, the land regranted shall not be transferred for a period of 15 years. It is further stated that in Sub-section (4) of Section 5 that any transfer of land in contravention of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 shall be null and void and the land so transferred be forfeited to and vested in the State Government, hence the order passed by Deputy Commissioner is correct. It is further stated that the ground urged that no notice has been issued is untenable. It is stated that despite due notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, the Petitioner remained absent. It is also stated that the Petitioner purchased the regranted Inam land in clear violation of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 and the land so transferred has to be forfeited by the State Government.

3. As stated, the learned Single Judge has referred this matter for re-consideration and for answering the following 6 questions:

1) Whether in view of Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978 and especially in view of the expression used in that Sub-section "the following Sub-sections shall be and shall be deemed always to have been inserted" Sub-sections (4) to (6) of Section 5 are retrospective in operation and not