( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 227 of the, Constitution, is directed against the order of the Karnataka Revenue, Appellate. Tribunal dt. 12-7-1972 made in revision No. 155j71 (MPFCH ). ( 2 ) THE facts which are no. t now in dispute are these: An extent of 22 guntas in Sy. No,64/2 of Bilelkhand village, Bhatkal Taluka, was considered as a fragment under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (shorty called 'the Bombay Act' ). The said portion was sold by Respondent 3, in favour of Respondents 1 and 2. On 24-12-1967, the Assistant Commissioner declared the sale to be invalid, as it was contrary to the provisions of the bombay Act. He also directed the purchasers to pay a fine of Rs. 200. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, respondents 1 and 2 appealed to the dy. Commissioner. The Dy. Commissioner dismissed their appeal. They further preferred a revision petition before the Karnataka Revenue Appellate tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to him to dispose of the matter afresh and in accordance with law. ( 4 ) INTERRUPTING the narration, I have to state one other fact. On 11-2- 1967, Manjunath, the father of the petitioner, purchased the said land from respondent 3 On 1-5-1969, the Bombay Act was repealed by the coming into force of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Karnataka Act' ). ( 5 ) WHEN the Asst. Commissiner took up the matter for consideration, pursuant to the order of remand, the Karnataka Act was in force. Before him, respondents 1 and 2 contended, that they are entitled to the; benefit of the provisions of S. 40 of the Karnataka Act The Asst Commissioner upheld that plea and declared that the sale in favour of respondents 1 and 2 shall not be deemed void, despite the provisions to the contrary under the Bombay Act the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged that decision in a revision petition before the Tribunal. He has now approached this Court under Art 227 of the Constitution ( 6 ) THE decision in this case, turns on the meaning and scope of S. 40 of. the Karnataka, Act. " 40. He has now approached this Court under Art 227 of the Constitution ( 6 ) THE decision in this case, turns on the meaning and scope of S. 40 of. the Karnataka, Act. " 40. Validation of certain transfers, partitions and sub-divisions made before the commencement of this Act :- it is clear from the above provisions, that if a sale or subdivision of any land was made, before the commencement of the Karnataka Act, and that sale or division though contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Act, shall not be deemed to be void, merely on the ground of such contravention if the person is in possession of that land and pays to the State, Government within the prescribed time, a penalty equal to one per cent of the consideration of the land transferred or sub divided There is no dispute in this case about possession of the land by respondents 1 and 2, and their payment of prescribed fine to the Government. The sale in their favour is, therefore, clearly protected by S. 40 of the Karnataka Act. ( 7 ) MR. Mandagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that S. 40 of the Karnataka Act cannot be attracted to the present case, as the proceedings for invalidating the said sale was pending before a competent authority before the Bombay Act was 'repealed. But, I can see no distinction in the position of law and the applicability of S. 40 to a, case in respect of which there. was pending proceedings under the Bombay Act. S. 40 is a declaration made by the legislature. It declares that transfers or subdivisions made in contravention of S. 9 or S. 31 of the Bombay Act, shall not be deemed void merely on that ground. The protection of S. 40, therefore, would be available to, all cases of contravention of S. 9 or of S. 31 of the Bombay Act, no matter whether there was concerned proceedings pending or not when the, Karnataka, Act came into force. But that protection cannot be extended to a case in' which there was already a declaration invalidating the sale under the Bombay Act. ( 8 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in Bai Achhuba v. Kalidas haranath, ATR 1967 SC. 651, on which reliance was placed by Mr. Mandagi, is of no assistance to him. But that protection cannot be extended to a case in' which there was already a declaration invalidating the sale under the Bombay Act. ( 8 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in Bai Achhuba v. Kalidas haranath, ATR 1967 SC. 651, on which reliance was placed by Mr. Mandagi, is of no assistance to him. On the contrary, it supports my above view. The Supreme Court in that case was considering the scope and effect of S. 84a (1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,. 1948. The said section affords a close parallel with the, provisions of S. 40 of the Karnataka act. In that ease, there was already a declaration that a transfer was invalid being contrary to the provisions of Ss. 63 and 64 of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Supreme Court held that the operation of S. 84a (1) is only prospcotive in the sense that it bars making of any declaration or a finding that a, transfer is invalid after the S 84a (1) came into force. It was also observed that the said section does not affect the adjudication in which a transfer had already been held to be invalid. ( 9 ) MR Mandagi next contended that by S 6 of the Mysore General clauses Act 1899, the proceedings relating to the impugned sale pending before the Asst. Commissioner under the Bombay Act, should be deemed to have been continued despite the repeal cat the Bombay Act and the petitioner being a purchaser on 11-12-1967, has got a right to continue that proceeding, without reference ol S 40 of the Karnataka Act. Suffice it to state that the Asst. Commissioner was not concerned with the validity of the sale in favour of the petitioner. He was only concerned with the validity of the sale made by respondent 3 in favour of respondents 1 and 2. S. 6 oi the Mysore General Clauses Act, therefore has no application to the facts of this case. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .