S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) THE first respondent made an application in terms of Section 142 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') read with Section 84-a of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act' ). The tahsildar concerned validated the transaction between one shankarappagouda basalingappagouda desai and subhachandra mahantappa modi after levying a penalty of Rs. 100/ -. This order is called in question in this proceeding. ( 2 ) IT is contended that under Section 63 of the Bombay Act sale and transfer of an agricultural land to a non-agriculturist is prohibited. The first respondent being a doctor by profession was not an agriculturist and therefore the registered gift deed dated 15-3-1952 is invalid. Any transaction entered into in contravention of the said Provisions could be validated by resort to Section 84-a of the Bombay Act. It is stated that application for validation of the transaction in this case had been filed in the year 1988, by which time, on the coming into force of the Act, the Bombay Act stood repealed and therefore power under Section 84-a of the Bombay Act was no more available for the authority with effect from 2-10-1965 and hence the order impugned is without jurisdiction. It was further pointed out that first respondent could not rely upon the Provisions of Section 142 of the act as there was no right, privilege or obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Bombay Act. It was also contended that no notice was served upon the petitioner in this behalf. ( 3 ) SECTION 142 of the act provides for repeal and savings of certain enactments and Bombay Act is one of the enactments referred to thereof. As on 1-11-1956 when states reorganisation took place Section 84-a of the Bombay Act in so far as it relevant to the purpose of the present case stood in effect thus, that is to say, it validated the transfers that had been effected, in contravention of Section 63 or 64, after coming into force of the parent act and before 15th june, 1955, on payment of penalty at the rate of 5 per cent of the consideration amount or Rs. 100 whichever is less. 100 whichever is less. And on payment of such penalty the mamlatdar would issue a certificate to the effect transfer is not invalid. ( 4 ) SECTION 142 of the act while repealing certain enactments, also provided for saving certain previous operation of the enactments and any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred or any legal remedy thereof, unless it be that a different intention appears from the Provisions of law. In relation to a transaction which had been entered into on 15-3-1952 there is no provision at all in the act. Moreover, such a transaction could be validated under the Bombay Act only if it had been entered into prior to 15th june, 1955. The act does not make any reference to such transactions at all, for the act came into force only on 2-10-1965. Therefore, the act had no relation or connection with the rights, privileges or remedies thereto arising under the Bombay Act. Hence, the question of Bombay Act coming into conflict with the act or any different intention appearing thereto would not arise. In the circumstances, we must hold that Provisions of Section 142 of the act certainly come to the rescue of the first respondent. ( 5 ) THE question therefore that arises for consideration is whether any right or privilege has accrued to the first respondent in relation to the transaction in question. The gift deed had been made on 15-3-1952 and the same could be got validated under Section 84-a of the Bombay Act. It was a right or privilege that had accrued to the donee under the Provisions of Section 84-a of the Bombay Act to get the transaction validated. And that right was exercised not then but later on. Therefore, a remedy in respect of such a privilege must be deemed to have been saved. When certain rights flow from a transaction and those rights or privileges are not intended to be destroyed by reason of repeal of an enactment, it must be held that transaction could have been got validated under the law then in force. In that view of the matter, we do not find much substance in the first contention urged on behalf of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, we do not find much substance in the first contention urged on behalf of the petitioners. ( 6 ) SO far as the petitioners not being heard in the matter, it is clear that the doctrine of 'audi alterem partem' would arise in a case where an order to the detriment of a party is passed. And the right of 'audi alterem partem' is not available if the Provisions of law specifically exclude the same. Under Section 84-a of the Bombay Act all that is stated is a transaction made after 28th december, 1948 and before 15th of june, 1955 shall not be declared to be invalid merely on the ground that the transfer was made in contravention of Section 63 or Section 64 of that act if the transferee pays to the state government a penalty at a particular rate. Question of hearing a party and passing an order thereto does not arise at all. But, on the other hand, the moment the penalty as provided under the statute is paid a certificate should be issued to the transferee that such transfer is not invalid. Question of enquiry in such a matter does not arise at all. When there is no 'lis' between the petitioners and the authority, question of issuing notice also does not arise. Compliance with the Provisions is rendered more or less formal and in such circumstances no enquiry need to be held for there remains nothing to be decided. When there is a registered gift deed and the execution of the gift deed is not in dispute, the transfer will not be rendered invalid by reason of payment of penalty as provided under Section 84-a of the Bombay Act and no more. If that is the nature of the provisions contained in Section 84-a of the Bombay Act, there is no question of enquiry or hearing of any party and consequently issue of notice will not arise at all. It is only in cases where an enquiry is to be held to determine the rights of parties or any obligation is to be created and liability to be discharged, non-performance of which results in civil consequences, then notice would be necessary. But, in a case where there is mere certification of validity of a transaction such a question does not arise at all. But, in a case where there is mere certification of validity of a transaction such a question does not arise at all. Hence, we are of the view that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they had no notice of the proceeding and hence impugned order is invalid is not well-founded. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners cited two decisions, one in the case of gopal bagwant v kallappa and the other in the case of k. n. hegde v v. t. hegde2. But the said decisions have no relevance or application to the facts in the present case or the questions arising for consideration herein. ( 8 ) NO other contentions are advanced on behalf of the petitioners. ( 9 ) HENCE, petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. --- *** --- .