M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE order impugned in these petitions being common and the facts and circumstances and the question of law arising out of them also being similar, I propose to dispose of them by the following common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have questioned the legality and correctness of the orders, anncxures-c and d, made by the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner, 2 and 1 herein, respectively. ( 3 ) NARASIMHADAS, father of tukaram, respondent 4 herein, was granted 9 acre 73 cents of land in sy. No. 844 of kamalapura village, hospct taluk, bellary district by the competent authority under the standing orders of the board of revenue of Madras on 7-9-1957 subject to certain condition. Accordingly, saguvali chit or title deed was also issued to him on that day. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, the grantee narasimhadas sold the land in bits. The transactions areas follows:1) r. Vecranna, petitioner in W. P. No. 9162/1986, purchased 2 acres on 24-4-1978 from tippanna who purchased it from the grantee narasimhadas on 7-12-1971; 2) Smt. Asha bee, petitioner in W. P. No. 9163/1986, and one ramappa jointly purchased 2 acres 10 cents on 7-12-1971 from the grantee narasimhadas. 3) abdul ghani, petitioner in W. P. No. 9164/1986 purchased 2 acres from ramappa on 24-4-1974 and ramappa had purchased it earlier from the grantee narasimhadas on 7-12-1971. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they arc, after purchase, in possession and enjoyment of their respective portions. ( 6 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (the act for short), the original grantee narasimhadas filed an application before the assistant commissioner, rcspondcnt-2 herein, seeking reliefs under sections 4 and 5 of the Act, on the ground that the alienations were made against the condition of the grant and that therefore he was entitled for the reliefs prayed for. ( 7 ) THE assistant commissioner having held an enquiry earlier by his order dated 30-12-1982, declared the sale transactions as null and void. ( 7 ) THE assistant commissioner having held an enquiry earlier by his order dated 30-12-1982, declared the sale transactions as null and void. As against the said Order, an appeal was preferred before the deputy commissioner, who, having heard learned counsel on both sides, allowed the appeal, set aside the order made by the assistant commissioner and remitted the matter to him for fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with law, on the ground that the alienations had taken place after the prohibitory period of 15 years as imposed in the grant. ( 8 ) ON remand, the assistant commissioner once again held an enquiry and made an order on 1-8-1985 as per anncxure-c holding that in view of the decisions of this court and the circular instructions issued by the government of Karnataka, the alienations had got to be declared as null and void as they were within the prohibitory period of 15 years as imposed in the Karnataka land grant rules. Thus, he declared the alienations as void and directed restoration of the land, by his Order, Annexure-C. ( 9 ) IT may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the proceedings before the assistant commissioner, the original grantee, narasimhadas died and his son, respondcnt-4 herein, was brought on record. ( 10 ) AS against the said Order, appeals under Section 5-a of the act were preferred before the deputy commissioner, respondent-1 herein, by veeranna and Smt. Asha bee, the first two petitioners herein, and one layyalappa. The deputy commissioner dismissed the appeals affirming the conclusion reached by the assistant commissioner. Hence these petitions. ( 11 ) SRI H. Rangavittalachar, learned counsel for the petitioners, took me through the impugned orders and the Provisions of law relating to the grant of lands and urged the following contentions; (1) after the area of bellary was taken over from Madras state to Mysore state under the adoption laws, the state of Mysore could not have passed the government order dated 1-9-1955 intending to alter the condition imposed under the grant of lands under the standing orders of the board of revenue of the Madras state. (2) although the rules relating to land grant were framed by the Mysore state with effect from 6-10-1960, the conditions imposed under the standing orders of the board of revenue of the Madras state under which the land in question was granted remained unchanged even after the taking over of the bellary area to Mysore state. Therefore, admittedly, the law relating to grant of lands under the standing orders continued till 1960 when the legislature of Mysore enacted laws. (3) in view of the observations made by this court in S. V. Krishnappa v State of Karnataka, ILR 1982 Kar. 1310 and the law enunciated by brother Chandrakantaraj urs in Laxmi Narayana K. Swamy v Selection committee, for imbbs and another, 1982 (2) Kar. L. J. 64 and having regard to Article 162 of the constitution, without resorting to the constitutional machinery provided for changing the law after the area of bellary was taken over to Mysore state, the state of Mysore had no competence to issue the government order dated 1-9-1955 by which the conditions imposed under the grant of the land in question by the standing orders of the board of revenue of Madras state came to be altered. Therefore, the government order cannot be sustained. ( 12 ) SRI M. Siddagangaiah, learned high court government pleader, opposed this submission. His stand is that, after the area of bellary was taken over in 1953, the state of Mysore had under Section 233 of the Mysore land revenue code right to issue government orders from time to time intending to either alter or modify the law prevalent in bellary area earlier to adoption. In other words, his submission is that by virtue of the taking over of the area of bellary to Mysore state in 1953, the state had inherent powers to modify or alter the rules made, or the condition imposed by the board of revenue of Madras state. He therefore, submitted that the view taken by the authorities below was justified. ( 13 ) THE andhra State Act, 1953 (act No. Xxx of 1953) was enacted to provide for the formation of the state of andhra the increasing of the area of the state of Mysore and the diminishing of the area of the state of Madras, and for matters connected therewith. ( 13 ) THE andhra State Act, 1953 (act No. Xxx of 1953) was enacted to provide for the formation of the state of andhra the increasing of the area of the state of Mysore and the diminishing of the area of the state of Madras, and for matters connected therewith. The act was published in the gazette of India, extraordinary, part ii, Section i, p. 213, dated 14th september, 1953. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to sub-section (2) of Section 4, without prejudice to the power of the state government to alter hereafter the extent, boundaries and names of districts, the transferred territory shall form a separate district to be known as bellary district. This can be seen from the amendment to the first schedule to the constitution, clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides: "at the end of the last paragraph, the following shall be added, namely:"but in the case of the state of Madras shall not include the territories specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 and sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the andhra state Act, 1953". ( 15 ) THUS, by virtue of the above act and the schedule thereunder, the area of bellary was taken over by the erstwhile Mysore state and therefore the lands which were earlier under the control of the Madras state came to be under the control of the Mysore state and subsequently the Mysore adaptation laws Order, 1953 came into force with effect from 1-10-1953 by which the Mysore state adapted the area of bellary district as a part of the state of mysore. This was under Section 54 of the said act. No doubt, this is subject to General Clauses Act, 1897. Thus, there is no doubt that after the area of bellary was taken over by the state of mysore, all the lands situated within the district of bellary came under the control and jurisdiction of the erstwhile state of mysore. ( 16 ) IT is thereafter that the government order in No. R6. 9190-93-L. r. 136-55-4, dated 1st september, 1955 came to be issued by the erstwhile state of mysore. It reads:"government of Mysore revenue department. G. o. No. R6. 9190-93 - L. r. 136-55-4, dated 1st september, 1955. Assignment of land. ( 16 ) IT is thereafter that the government order in No. R6. 9190-93-L. r. 136-55-4, dated 1st september, 1955 came to be issued by the erstwhile state of mysore. It reads:"government of Mysore revenue department. G. o. No. R6. 9190-93 - L. r. 136-55-4, dated 1st september, 1955. Assignment of land. Empowers the revenue officers in bellary district, regarding read: standing order No. 15-3, issued by the board of revenue, Madras, empowering the tahsildars to assign waste lands not reserved on their own authority. 2. Government order No. 1523 - revenue, dated 11th june, 1949 of the government of Madras, lifting the ban on permanent assignment of lands, and issuing instructions in the matter of assignment of land to several classes of persons upto a limit of ten acres of dry land or five acres of wet land. 3. Madras government memorandum No. U. O. 1055 - F. 153, dated 9th march, 1954, issuing instructions regarding the extent of dry land to be assigned to landless poor persons, reducing the limit of assignment of land to five acres. 4. Letter No. BL. P. R. 72-72-54-55, dated 12th october, 1954, received from the revenue commissioner in mysore, forwarding a copy of the letter of the deputy commissioner, bellary district, regarding the delegation of powers to the tahsildars and assistant commissioner of bellary district in the matter of assignment of land. Order No. R6. 9190-93-Lr. 136-55-4, dated Bangalore, 1st september, 1955 under the government of Madras rules in force in bellary district, the deputy commissioner is empowered to grant five acres of dry or two and a half acres of wet land. The tahsildars, deputy tahsildars and assistant commissioners have no powers to grant any lands. II. It is now reported that a large number of 'darkast' applications is being received from the several taluks in the district and that it is difficult for the deputy commissioner to ensure speedy disposal of all the applications. The deputy commissioner, bellary district, has recommended that the tahsildars and deputy tahsildars may be empowered to assign lands upto a limit of five acres of non-valuable dry lands for the landless poor persons. III. The revenue commissioner has recommended that assignment of lands in bellary district may be done, as per orders in force in the rest of the state of Mysore. IV. III. The revenue commissioner has recommended that assignment of lands in bellary district may be done, as per orders in force in the rest of the state of Mysore. IV. In supersession of the standing orders of the board of revenue, Madras and of the orders of the government of Madras, read above, it is ordered that the following rules shall apply to assignment of lands in bellary district: l (a) land under the control of the revenue department specified in clause (c) shall be granted at an upset price to an individual who (i) is poor; (ii) has attained majority; (iii) is cither a bona fide agriculturist or bona fide intends to cultivate the land; and (iv) under clause (b) is eligible for the grant to the extent to which he is eligible. (b) (l) an individual, who does not own any land, shall be eligible to the grant of land, to the extent of four acres of wet or garden land or ten acres of dry land; and (ii) an individual who owns less than four acres of wet or garden land or ten acres of dry land, shall be eligible to the grant of such extent of land as would make up, together with the land already owned by him, four acres of wet or garden land or ten acres of dry land. Explanation. Explanation. In this Rule, two acres of wet or garden land shall be deemed to be equivalent to five acres of dry land and vice versa and the equivalent of a lesser area shall be determined in the same proportion; (c) the powers of the different revenue authorities as regards the grant of land shall be as follows, and any grant made in contravention of this clause shall be invalid: (i) the tahsildar may grant land specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (c) not exceeding four acres of dry land provided the market value of such land does not exceed three hundred rupees; (ii) the assistant commissioner may grant land specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (c) not exceeding seven acres of dry land or two acres of irrigated wet land or garden land, provided the market value of such land does not exceed seven hundred and fifty rupees; (iii) the deputy commissioner may grant land specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (c) not exceeding ten acres of dry land or four acres of irrigated wet land or garden land, provided the market value of such land does not exceed one thousand and five hundred rupees, where the market value of such land exceeds one thousand and five hundred rupees but does not exceed three thousand rupees, the deputy commissioner may grant the land with the previous sanction of the revenue commissioner. (d) in the case of grant of land to persons belonging to scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes who are poor, out of the upset price payable, the recovery of two hundred rupees may be waived, the balance, if any, being payable in annual instalments not exceeding three. (e) the Provisions of this Rule shall be applicable to the grant of the following classes of land, namely; (i) released date groves; (ii) released forest lands; (iii) excess gomal lands; (iv) assessed waste-lands; (v) hulbanni kharab. 2. (a) notwithstanding anything contained in rale 1, any person holding land maybe granted, for an upset price, land nearby to the land so held, if such nearby land, is, in the opinion of the authority specified in clause (b), required for the better enjoyment of the land so held or for building a farm-house or for any agricultural purpose, provided that no grant under this Rule shall be made to any person more than once. (b) the deputy commissioner may grant under clause (a) upto twenty guntas of wet land or one acre of dry land, provided the market value of such land does not exceed one thousand and five hundred rupees. The deputy commissioner may, with the previous sanction of the revenue commissioner, also grant upto one acre of wet land or two acres of dry land, provided the market value of such land does not exceed three thousand rupees. 3. The upset price under rules 1 and 2 shall not be fixed arbitrarily, but shall represent the actual market value of the land as it can be ascertained by local enquiries and by the examination of records of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood, and, if necessary, of the registration statistics relating to them. 4. The tahstldar should invariably obtain the orders of his superior officers in regard to the disposal of lands irrigated or likely to be irrigated by large irrigation projects. The department of public works should, as soon as possible, after any project is taken up for investigation or consideration, notify to the revenue department, either generally or specially, the lands which will be, or likely to be affected by the project. 5. In all cases of grant of land whether for a price or not, a sum equivalent to the cost of the boundary marks which have been or may have to be constructed on the land, shall invariably be collected from the grantees in accordance with instructions issued by government from time to time. The deputy commissioner will, however, be allowed to waive this charge in cases of extreme poverty of the applicants. The deputy commissioner will, however, be allowed to waive this charge in cases of extreme poverty of the applicants. 6 (a) every grant of land under Rule 1 shall be subject to the condition that (i) where the grant is made free of cost, the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the date of grant; or (ii) where the grant is made for an upset price or for a reduced upset price, the land granted shall not be alienated for a period often years from the date of the grant: provided that nothing in this Rule shall apply to (1) the alienation of any land in favour of the government or a co-operative society as security for loans obtained for improvement of the land or for buying cattle or agricultural implements for the cultivation of the land; or (2) the leasing of any land by a person who is a widow, a minor, or who is subject to physical or mental disability. (b) if the Provisions of clause (a) are contravened, ihe land granted may be summarily resumed by the government, and such land shall vest in the government free from all encumbrances; and neither the grantee nor the alienee, if any, shall be entitled to any compensation. 7. Lands containing ten or more sandalwood trees of over 12" in girth per acre should be reserved to government or disposed of only in consultation with the forest department. 8. Lands containing smaller number of such developed trees may be granted for cultivation under the orders of the deputy commissioner who, before passing orders, should get. A complete list of both trees and plants of sandal in the land and consider the desirability or otherwise of granting the said land, keeping in view the intention of government to reserve all lands containing thick sandal growth. 9. In special cases, where the land is very valuable or where there is no demand for land from persons eligible for the grant of lands under Rule 1, the deputy commissioner may, with the previous sanction of the revenue commissioner, sell such land by public auction. 10. 9. In special cases, where the land is very valuable or where there is no demand for land from persons eligible for the grant of lands under Rule 1, the deputy commissioner may, with the previous sanction of the revenue commissioner, sell such land by public auction. 10. Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding rules and subject to the Provisions of Rule 12, no person shall be granted land exceeding the area to which he is eligible under Rule 1, either free or at an upset price or at a reduced upset price, except with the previous sanction of the government. 11. Where the unoccupied government land available for beinggranted for cultivation exceeds twenty-five acres in any village, not less than twenty per cent of such land shall be reserved for beinggranted to persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. 12. In the case of educational institutions approved by the director of public instructions, the deputy commissioner may grant lands, whether dry or wet, not exceeding ten acres, the market value of which does not exceed one thousand rupees. The revenue commissioner, or the deputy commissioner with the previous sanction of the revenue commissioner, may grant lands exceeding ten acres but not exceeding twenty-five acres, the market value of which exceeds one thousand rupees, but does not exceed two thousand and five hundred rupees. No land exceeding 25 acres or the market value of which exceeds two thousand and five hundred rupees shall be granted to any educational institution without the previous sanction of government, the grant of land made under this Rule shall be subject to the condition that the land granted shall not be alienated by the grantee and shall be liable to resumption when the recognition to the educational institution is withdrawn by the director of public instruction or when the land is put to use for a purpose other than that for which it is granted. The grantee shall execute a bond to abide by the conditions of the grant. R. J. rego, secretary to government revenue department. " ( 17 ) IT is seen that the intendment of the government order aforesaid is to enable the deputy commissioner and other authorities of the district of beliary to exercise (he power under the land grant rules for the purpose of granting lands under dharkast. R. J. rego, secretary to government revenue department. " ( 17 ) IT is seen that the intendment of the government order aforesaid is to enable the deputy commissioner and other authorities of the district of beliary to exercise (he power under the land grant rules for the purpose of granting lands under dharkast. Para iv of the government order refers to the standing orders of the board of revenue, Madras, which were prevalent prior to the taking over of the area of beliary district to Mysore state. The government order intended to supersede the conditions imposed under the grant of land by the authorities under the standing orders of the board of revenue, Madras. In other words, the conditions imposed during grant of lands before the bellary area was taken over to the Mysore state were not made applicable for the purpose of grant of land. Para iv says:"in supersession of the standing orders of the board of revenue, Madras, and of the orders of the government of Madras, read above, it is ordered that the following rules shall apply to assignment of lands in bellary district. "that means, the state of Mysore intended, inter alia, to substitute the conditions for the conditions imposed under the standing orders of the board of revenue, Madras. The conditions imposed under the government order are in paragraph 6. The petitioners are aggrieved by the imposition of the said conditions which, according to them, would affect their rights. ( 18 ) SRI H. Rangavittalachar contends that by virtue of Section 54 of the andhra State Act, 1953 (act No. 30 of 1953), the state of Mysore may for the purpose of administration make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, but subject to certain conditions, one of which was that the General Clauses Act, 1897, applies for the interpretation of such orders as provided in the Mysore adaptation of laws Order, 1953, and that therefore the Provisions of the General Clauses Act, are made applicable. ( 19 ) SECTION 6-a of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads:"where any Central Act or regulation made after the commencement of this act repeals any enactment by which the text of any Central Act or regulation was amended by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of repeal. " ( 20 ) IN view of the above Provisions, it is contended for the petitioners that as longas such Provisions are made available, the rights and liabilities of the petitioners created under the grant are protected and they cannot be taken away without due course of law. In other words, even though the state of Mysore made an order in supersession of the order made by the Madras government, the conditions imposed under the grant made by the latter continued till the state of Karnataka legislated the laws for the purpose of governing the grant of lands. That being so, the alienations effected by the original grantee narasimhadas are legal and cannot be annulled. Consequently, the orders impugned herein are liable to be quashed. ( 21 ) ADMITTEDLY, no Rule or regulation was made by the legislature of the erstwhilestate of Mysore before the government order dated 1-9-1955 was made. Therefore, the submission is that the government order made by the state in exercise of its executive power cannot be given effect to unless and until the legislature enacts rules or regulations to that effect. Unfortunately, the erstwhile state of Mysore had not taken any action in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the constitution. ( 22 ) WITH a view to appreciate the contention, I extract Article 162 which reads:"162. Extent of executive power of state. Subject to the Provisions of this constitution, the executive power of a state shall extend to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the state has power to make laws: provided that in any matter with respect to which the legislature of a state and parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the state shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by this Constitution or by any law made by parliament upon the union or authorities thereof. " ( 23 ) THE contention of Sri H. Rangavittalachar is that no such action had beentaken by the erstwhile state of Mysore in exercise of the powers under Articles 162 or 245 of the Constitution to make laws relating to grant of lands coming within the area of bellary and that therefore the government order made for the first time cannot be acted upon. He placed reliance upon the decision of this court laxminarayana's case to drive home the point. In paragraph 11 of the judgment in laxniinarayana's case, it has been held as follows:"the Karnataka state universities act is an act of legislature. Once a law occupied the field as in the case of prescribing the academic standard for admission to any of the courses offered by the universities in Karnataka state by clause (c), of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act, it will not be open to the state government, in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution to prescribe in the same field by an executive order. " ( 24 ) IN state of Maharashtra v Chandrakant anant, AIR 1981 SC 1990 . The in lordships of the Supreme Court have held in paragraph 14 as under: "there can be no dispute with the proposition that a Rule framed under theproviso to Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be modified by an executive order. " ( 25 ) IN Mannalal Jain v State of Assam, AIR 1962 SC 386 . Their lordships of the Supreme Court have held in paragraph 12 as follows:"the wisdom of issuing executive instructions in matters which are governed by Provisions of law is doubtful; even if it be considered necessary to issue instructions in such a matter, the instructions cannot be so framed or utilised as to override the Provisions of law. Such a method will destroy the very basis of the Rule of law and strike at the very root of orderly administrations of law. Such a method will destroy the very basis of the Rule of law and strike at the very root of orderly administrations of law. " ( 26 ) IN Nagaraja B. N. v State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1979 SC 1676 , dealing with the power under Article 162 of the Constitution in exercise of which an order was made by the government of Mysore intending to regularise the seniority and promotion in the matters of service in the state of mysore, the Supreme Court held in paragraph 5 as follows:"apart from repelling the contention that regularisation connotes permanence, these observations furnish the second reason for rejection of the argument advanced on behalf of the promotees and that reason is that when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in force, no regularisation is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the government under Article 162 thereof in contravention of the rules. The regularisation order was made long after the probation rules, the seniority rules and the recruitment rules were promulgated and could not therefore direct something which would do violence to any of the Provisions thereof. Regularisation in the present case, if it meant permanence operative from the 1st of november, 1956, would have the effect of giving seniority to promotees over the direct recruits who, in the absence of such regularisation, would rank senior fo the former because of the seniority rules read with the probation rules and may in consequence also confer on the promotees a right of priority in the matter of sharing the quota under the recruitment rules. In other words, the regularisation Order, in colouring the appointments of promotees as assistant engineers with permanence would run counter to the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. What could not be done under the three sets of rules as they stood, would thus be achieved by an executive fiat. And such a course is not permissible because an act done in the exercise of the executive power of the government, as already stated, cannot override rules framed under Article 309 of the constitution. What could not be done under the three sets of rules as they stood, would thus be achieved by an executive fiat. And such a course is not permissible because an act done in the exercise of the executive power of the government, as already stated, cannot override rules framed under Article 309 of the constitution. " ( 27 ) THAT apart, there is some force in the submission of Sri Rangavittalachar that the government order in question cannot be applied to this case as the rules made by the board of revenue, Madras, dealing in grant of lands in bellary area are continued evenafter the erstwhile state of Mysore framed rules in that behalf. It is necessary to extract Rule 17 of the land grant (Madras area and bellary district) rules, 1960 made by the government of Karnataka under g. o. No. Rd 5 lad 60, dated 6th october, 1960. It reads: -"17. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the rules and others in force in the Madras area and bellary district prior to the commencement of these rules shall continue to apply in respect of lands granted under such rules and orders. "therefore, it is clear that though the government of Karnataka framed rules covering the bellary area also after it was merged to Karnataka, the grants and the conditions made thereunder are continued even thereafter and the authorities of the government of Karnataka cannot apply the government order made on 1-9-1955 to the grants made earlier to re-organisation of states. There is one aspect which requires to be noticed. Dealing with sections 4 and 5 of the Act, a division bench of this court in Krishnappa S. V. and others v State of Karnataka and others, ILR 1982 KAR. 1310 had the occasion to make the following observations:"19. In the former state of Madras, grants of lands was governed by the stand- ing orders of the board of revenue. Para 41 of those orders, provided inter alia, that assignment of lands to persons belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes would be subject to the condition that the lands so granted should not be alienated before the expiry of 10 years from the date of grant. The board's standing orders continued to be in force in the Madras area and bellary district in the new state of Mysore (Karnataka after 1st november, 1956 ). The board's standing orders continued to be in force in the Madras area and bellary district in the new state of Mysore (Karnataka after 1st november, 1956 ). "therefore, in view of the foregoing, it is undoubtedly made clear that despite the area of bellary was taken over by the state of Mysore in the year 1953, the conditions imposed under the grant Of lands made under the standing orders of the board of revenue, Madras, were continued even after the Karnataka government framed rules governing the grant of lands in bellary area also, by virtue of Rule 17 of the land grant (Madras area and bellary district) rules, 1960. However, the Madras board of revenue Regulation, 1803 at si. No. 17 of the schedule to the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 came to be repealed by Section 202 thereof which provides:"202. Repeal and savings. (1) the enactments specified in the schedule, and any other law corresponding to this act are hereby repealed: provided that subject to the Provisions of this Act, the repeal shall not affect- (a) the previous operation of any such enactment or law or anything duly done or suffered thereunder;"xxx xxx xxx sub-section (3) of Section 202 reads:"any reference in any enactment or law or in any instrument to any provision of any of the enactment or law repealed by sub-section (1) shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as a reference to the corresponding provision of this act. (4) any custom, usage or order prevailing in any area of the state, at the time of the commencement of this Act, and having the force of law therein shall, if such custom, usage or order is repugnant to, or inconsistent with any of the Provisions of this Act, cease to be operative to the extent of such repugnancy or inconsistency. " ( 28 ) THUS, there arc sufficient safeguards provided even under Section 202 to protect the interests of the persons, who, by virtue of the grant made by the standing orders of the board of revenue, Madras, were enjoying the lands so granted as on the date of the commencement of this Act, and unless the conditions under which the grants were made, were found to be repugnant to the Provisions of this Act, those conditions are continued to prevail. In view of the foregoing, there is enough force in the argument of Sri Rangaviltalachar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that despite the issuance of the government order dated 1-9-1955 intending to modify the conditions imposed under the standing orders of the board of revenue, Madras, the rules under which the land was granted in the present case continued to operate and that therefore the government order in question cannot be given effect to a case like this. ( 29 ) SRI M. Siddagangaiah, learned high court government pleader, has not been able to persuade me to take a different view. However, he brought to my notice Section 11 of the act and contended that the Provisions of Section 11 have effect over any other law for the time being in force and that therefore this court held in Bhagi Hengsu v Rocky Lasrado, 1990 (3) KAR. L. J. 575 : ILR 1991 KAR. 2375 as follows:"by a perusal of Section 11 of the Act, it is undoubtedly clear that the Provisions of that Section will have overriding effect over all other enactments. Therefore, the view that Rule 29-a validates the alienations made to persons other than sc/st also, is incorrect and improper. On the other hand, in view of Section 11 of the Act, which will have overriding effect over all other enactments, Rule 29-a must yield to it. "there is no difficulty in understanding the law laid down in bhagi hengsu 's case because I was a party to that judgment. In that case, the question arose for consideration was whether insertion of Rule 29-a of the Karnataka land grant rules, 1969 can validate the alienations of the lands granted under the land grant rules. That insertion of Rule 29-a by way of amendment was with intent to relax the condition imposed under the grant regarding non-alienation. In that context, the division bench considering Rule 29-a with reference to Section 11 of the Act, held that Rule 29-a must yield to Section 11. In the instant case, no such amendment has been brought into the existing rules governing the grant of lands in question. On the contrary, the government in exercise of its executive power issued the government order dated 1-9-1955 by-way of administrative instructions with intent to alter or modify the rules already in force in the field. In the instant case, no such amendment has been brought into the existing rules governing the grant of lands in question. On the contrary, the government in exercise of its executive power issued the government order dated 1-9-1955 by-way of administrative instructions with intent to alter or modify the rules already in force in the field. That being so, question of applying the decision in bhagi hengsu's case to this case does not arise. ( 30 ) AS I have already pointed out referring to Articles 162 and 245 of the Constitution of India, the state government instead of framing rules through legislature had intended to amend, in exercise of its executive power, the rules already operating in the field by way of an executive order which cannot have overriding effect over the rules in force. ( 31 ) WHAT follows from the above is that the government order cannot be acted upon and that the rules under which the lands in question were granted in the instant case have to be followed for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is any contravention of the condition of the grant in alienating the lands in question. Admittedly, the land in question was granted on 7-9-1957 with a condition not to alienate it for a period of 10 years, and the same was sold in bits as staled above on 7-12-1971 and 24-4-1978 after the prohibitory period of 10 years. Therefore, question of invalidating the alienations does not arise. The authorities below were in error in annulling the said alienations. Consequently, the orders, annexures-c and d made by them have to be quashed. ( 32 ) IN the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the orders impugned herein at annexures-c and d are quashed. No costs. --- *** --- .