M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned high court government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent 3. ( 2 ) IN this writ petition, the order passed by the land tribunal, yalburga taluk, raichur district dated 16-1-1992, passed in case No. Lr/inam/14/90-91 has been challenged by the petitioners. ( 3 ) AS per the impugned Order, the form 1 filed by the present petitioners claiming occupancy rights in respect of survey No. 5 measuring 19 acres 35 guntas situated at gule village was rejected. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the above Order, the present petitioners have filed this writ petition. ( 5 ) THE land tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the occupancy rights in respect of the said land had been granted to respondent 3 on 24-7-1984 in case no. lr/inam/84-85/120. ( 6 ) THE land in question is a service inam land. It is not disputed that the petitioners have also made their application in form 1 within the extended time. ( 7 ) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent 3 that public notice was taken out by respondent 3 when he filed form 1 and that public notice was duly published and after due publication, the present petitioners did not come forward and file any objections and so the grant of occupancy rights in favour of respondent 3 is valid and cannot be revoked. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the contesting respondent 3 has relied on a decision of this court in ningamma v land tribunal, maddur taluk and others , wherein it has been laid down that"where on an application filed by one person a public notice as per Section 48-a (2) has been issued, other persons having any claim to the land notified ought to appear before the tribunal in response to the public notice and put forth their claims. Where a person has failed to do so merely because the time for filing application under Section 48-a came to be extended it cannot be said that claim already disposed off according to law, ought to be reopened". ( 9 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, the decision rendered by the learned single judge supports the contention urged on behalf of the contesting respondent 3. ( 9 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, the decision rendered by the learned single judge supports the contention urged on behalf of the contesting respondent 3. But "the inn that shelters for the night is not the journey's end. The law, like the traveller, must be ready for the morrow. It must have a principle of growth". (the growth of law by benjamin m. Cardozo ). ( 10 ) THE decision referred to above is not good law in view of the subsequent division bench ruling of this court in basappa gurusangappa v land tribunal, badami and others , wherein it has been laid down that "even if one of the rival applicants had filed his application earlier and the tribunal had granted him occupancy right in respect of the land and subsequently another applicant makes an application within the time limit provided by Section 48-a in respect of the same land, the tribunal is bound to consider the later application by setting aside its earlier order and consider both the rival applications". ( 11 ) IN view of the law laid down by the division bench of this court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24-7-1984, passed in case No. Lr/inam/84-85/120 (Annexure-C) granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent 3 is quashed. ( 13 ) THE matter is remanded to the land tribunal, yalburga, raichur district, with a direction to issue notices to all the concerned parties and proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, by holding fresh enquiry. ( 14 ) THE tribunal is further directed to club forms 1 filed by respondent 3 and the present petitioners. ( 15 ) THE writ petition is allowed and the matter remanded as stated above. No costs. Rule made absolute. Sri s. v. jagannath, high court government Advocate is permitted to file the memo of appearance within eight weeks. --- *** --- .