ORDER :

In view of the reference order passed by the learned single judge dated 02.04.2019, made in Writ Petition No.6872/2013 and 12485/2013 the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice by the order dated 8.4.2019 referred the following questions for reference to a larger bench, as under:

REFERENCE MADE BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

(1) Whether State of Karnataka, authorized to enact Law under Entries in List II, could in the background of Constitutional mandate in Article 246(3), traverse beyond authorized field of legislation set out in Entry 45 and Entry 65 of the Constitution of India?

(2) Whether the appointment of a revenue official in the rank of an Assistant Commissioner as an Appellate Authority under Section 136 (2) of the Act and Rule 69 of the KLR Rules and Deputy Commissioner as revisional authority under Section 136 (3) of the KLR Act, leading to adjudication of various complex adversarial revenue disputes, inter-parties, involving adjudication of question relating to title and possession, is violative and in excess of the powers of the State under Article 246(3), read with Entries 45 and 65, List II, Schedule-VII of the Constitution and would the same militate the Basic Structure Doctrine of Separation of powers?

(3) Whether proviso to Section 135 of KLR Act would result in enlarging the period of limitation under Central Enactment by reason of two parallel proceedings i.e., one under Revenue Jurisdiction and the other under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure by reason of proviso to Section 135 of KLR Act?

(4) Whether it is permissible to split the cause of action available to an aggrieved person by requiring him to first exhaust the remedies under Chapter XI of KLR Act and then to start de novo civil proceedings as contemplated in Section 135 and proviso thereto?

2. This is a classic case of deprivation of rights in respect of immovable property for more than five decades, neither deciding the rights nor have reached finality which affects the larger sections of the society in the State of Karnataka which affects their fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. Now time warrants to set right the same in the interest of the general public at large.

BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE REFERENCE

3. The petitioners before the learned Single Judge sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.4.2012 and 2.5.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent/Special Tahsildar in RRTCR 35/2012-13 resulting in MR No.H 157/2011-12 as per Annexures-H and J; to direct the Tahsildar to annul all the entries made on the basis of Annexure-J; a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent-Special Tahsildar to restore the entries in RTC as it stood before 24.12.2008; direct the 1st respondent-State Government to transmit all such adversarial litigation in the Revenue Courts (Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner) to the respective territorial Courts of Senior Civil Judge and District and Sessions Judges respectively; and a writ declaring to read down the term of the Assistant Commissioner under Sec. 136(2) and Deputy Commissioner under 136(3) of the KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the KLR Act’) to mean and include the respective territorial Senior Civil Judge and territorial District Judge respectively.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

4. It is the case of the petitioners that