I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.6520/2003:

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the purpose for which this I.A. is made, we permit the State of Karnataka to carry on Dr. S. Roerich Centenary Celebrations till the end of December, 2004 on the premises in question.

The State Government is also permitted to take out paintings and other artefacts from Venkatappa Art Gallery to the place of celebrations, i.e., the premises in question. We make it clear that after the celebrations are over, they shall bring them back to the Venkatappa Gallery.

This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties as to the possession over the property in question.

I.A.No.3 is disposed of accordingly.

C.A.Nos.6520, 6521-6537 & 6538 of 2003 :

After hearing learned counsel for the parties for some time, we are of the view that the following substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India arise in these appeals:

1. Whether Section 110 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended by the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1973, (Act 1 of 1974), which came into effect from 01.03.1974, read with Section 79 B of the said Act, introduced by amending Act 1 of 1974, violates the basic structure of the Constitution, in so far as it confers power on the Executive Government, a delegatee of the Legislature, of withdrawal of exemption of Linaloe plantation, without hearing and without reasons

2. Whether the Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996, (the Acquisition Act), is protected by Article 31C of the Constitution

3. Whether on true interpretation of Article 300A of the Constitution, the said Act is violative of the said Article in so far as no specific compensation is prescribed for the acquisition of 468 Acres of Linaloe plantation, and, after deduction of liabilities and payment of compensation for the artefacts, no balance may and/or is likely to exist for payment of such compensation, as a result of which, whether the really is expropriatory in nature

4. Whether on true interpretation of Article 300A of the Constitution, the said Act is violative of Article 300A as the said Article is not, by itself, a source of Legislative power, but such power of the State Legislature being traceable only to Entry 42 of List III of Schedule VII to the Constitution viz. "Acquisition and Requisition of Property", which topic excludes expropriation and confiscation of property

5. If Article 300A of the Constitution is construed as providing for deprivation of property without any compensation at all, or illusory compensation, and hence providing for expropriation and confiscation of property, whether the said Article would violate the rule of law and would be an arbitrary and unconscionable violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, thus violating the basic structure of the Constitution

In this view, having regard to Article 145(3) of the Constitution, place the papers before Honble the Chief Justice for referring the matters to a Constitution Bench.

I.A.No.4 in C.A.No.6520/2003 :

To be heard along with the appeals.