( 1 ) THE petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 21. 1. 1978 (Annexure-C) passed by the 2nd respondent has presented this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that, he is the adopted son of one Smt. Mainabai. After the adoption the petitioner succeeded to the property bearing survey no. 218 measuring 37 acres 4 guntas situated at Ferozabad Taluk and District Gulbarga. The 4th respondent never cultivated the said land in any capacity, but he has filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question which had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal on 21. 1. 1978. After considering the material on record and the documentary evidence, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the 4th respondent by its order dated 21. 1. 1978. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length of time. ( 4 ) THE principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the 2nd respondent has failed to appreciate the fact that the name of the petitioner was shown in the records of rights in col. No. 9 and 12 for the years 58 to 61 and 1973 to 77. It is crystal clear that the 4th respondent was not personally cultivating the land as on 1. 3. 1974. This fact was not at all taken into consideration by the Land Tribunal at the time of granting occupancy rights in favour of 4th respondent. Further, he vehemently submitted that in Form No. 7 filed by the 4th respect in respect of the land in question the name of one Mainabai is shown as his land lady. The 2nd respondent has not issued any notice to the land lady nor bring the LRs after the death of said land lady. The mother of the petitioner died on 27. 12. 1977 and as on the date of the order she was no more. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal was against a dead person. Therefore the impugned order is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. Further he submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order and as such it is liable to be rejected. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal was against a dead person. Therefore the impugned order is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. Further he submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order and as such it is liable to be rejected. ( 5 ) I have carefully perused the impugned order, reevaluated the entire material on file with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE 4th respondent, herein has filed an application in Form No. 7 as a tenant for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question which had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal on 21. 1. 1978. The case was called the applicant 4th respondent was present. The mother of the petitioner sent her request seeking an adjournment on the ground that she was physically not able to attend the court due to old age and her request was considered and the matter was adjourned to 2. 11. 1977. Again on 2. 11. 77 another application was filed by the mother of the petitioner requesting an adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 3. 12. 1977. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 6. 1. 1978. When the matter was called on 6. 1. 1978, 4th respondent was present, the mother of the petitioner was said to have expired a week back, leaving her adopted son Muralidhar Rao. The Tribunal has ordered fresh notice to the said Muralidhar Rao and adjourned to 21. 1. 1978. On 21. 1. 1978 the matter was taken up for hearing. It reveals from the impugned order that the Village Accountant has written the name of 4th respondent upto 70-71 but thereafter the did not written the name of 4th respondent and he has deliberately written the name of the owner late Mainabai and the same was stated by the Village Accountant who was present before the Land Tribunal. Further he has specifically stated in unequivocal terms that the 4th respondent was cultivating the land in question. The Tribunal has examined two adjacent land owners and they have also stated that the 4th respondent was cultivating the land since from 1964 till that date. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal has given a specific finding that the land is a tenanted land prior to the relevant date i. e. on 1. 3. 1974. The Tribunal has examined two adjacent land owners and they have also stated that the 4th respondent was cultivating the land since from 1964 till that date. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal has given a specific finding that the land is a tenanted land prior to the relevant date i. e. on 1. 3. 1974. Taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, the occupancy rights was registered in the name of the 4th respondent on 21. 1. 1978. Therefore this admission of the Village Accountant itself suffice for the dismissal of the writ petition. In my considered view, the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted during the course of argument that notice was served to one Muralidhar Rao who is none other than the petitioner and his name was changed after the adoption by one Mainabai. Therefore the petitioner is well aware about the proceedings of the land Tribunal. Therefore, the submission of the leaned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was issued and no opportunity was given to the petitioner has no substance and the same is liable to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case on merits to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. ( 7 ) YET another reason the writ petition is liable to be rejected at threshold is on the ground of delay and laches. The present writ petition is presented by the petitioner on 21. 12. 2002 challenging the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal on 21. 1. 1978 and there is an inordinate delay of more than two decades for presenting this writ petition and he has not assigned any cogent reasons explaining the delay in filing the writ petition. Much credibility cannot be given to the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condonation of delay. Therefore on the ground of delay and laches the writ petition is liable to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this court. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and having regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and having regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondents no. 1 to 3. --- *** --- .