M.JAGANNADHA RAO, J. (1) ISSUE notice. Tag with RP (C) No. 1861 of 1997 in CA No. 4616 of 1997. (2) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that notice has been issued in Review Petition No. 1861 of 1997 in CA No. 4616 of 1997 on 3-9- 1997. The original judgment in the said civil appeal is reported in D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred us also to the following judgments of this Court in relation to the Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The first one is the judgment in Manchegowda case where a three-Judge Bench of this Court upheld the validity of the Act. Subsequently, in K.T. Huchegowda case a three-Judge Bench of this Court stated that a purchaser from the SC/ST grantee could acquire title by adverse possession for 12 years in case the grantee-vendor was vested under the grant with absolute ownership. However, if the land was not granted to the vendor absolutely but the Government retained title, then adverse possession for 30 years would be necessary. (3) WHILE things stood thus, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Papaiah v. State of Karnataka observed that any number of years of adverse possession, be it 12 years or 30 years, would not help the purchaser from the SC/ST grantee inasmuch as there was a principle of public policy which precluded acquisition of title by adverse possession. (4) BUT in R. Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka a two-Judge Bench of this Court observed that, in the facts of the case, there was no plea of adverse possession for 30 years and no relief could be granted to the purchaser. Again, in D.N. Venkatarayappa case the case in which notice on the review petition has since been ordered, a two-Judge Bench of this Court observed that adverse possession was not pleaded nor proved and hence no relief could be granted. These two cases R. Chandevarappa and D.N. Venkatarayappa proceed on the basis that there could be adverse possession for 30 years and appear prima facie to go against what was laid down in Papaiah case. But, at the same time, they do not appear to be inconsistent with the judgment in K.T. Huchegowda case rendered by three learned Judges. These two cases R. Chandevarappa and D.N. Venkatarayappa proceed on the basis that there could be adverse possession for 30 years and appear prima facie to go against what was laid down in Papaiah case. But, at the same time, they do not appear to be inconsistent with the judgment in K.T. Huchegowda case rendered by three learned Judges. In other words, Papaiah v. State of Karnataka decided by two learned Judges prima facie appears to be inconsistent with K.T. Huchegowda case decided by three learned Judges. (5) INASMUCH as D.N. Venkatarayappa case is already under review, we direct that this matter may be tagged on with the said Review Petition No. 1861 of 1997 in CA No. 4616 of 1997 leaving to that Bench to consider if the matters have to go before a three-Judge Bench to consider if Papaiah case was correctly decided. (6) INASMUCH as the original grantee had come back into possession pending the proceedings on 24-6-1997, there is no question of any interim relief.