ORDER The petitioners are before this Court challenging Annexure-B an order dated 22-10-2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwar in Writ Petition No. 26247 of 2002. The petitioners according to the petition averments are the heirs of the original tenant. Subject-matter of this writ petition is that the lands bearing R.S. No. 50/1 measuring 7 acres 25 guntas and R.S. No. 26/1A measuring 5 acres 25 guntas, are situated at Adaragunchi Village, Rubli Taluk. The petitioners and their ancestors were the tenants of the lands in question. An application was filed seeking for occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, Rubli. The Land Tribunal granted rights in favour of the petitioners and other L.Rs of Ramappa Gurappa Allapur. The same was challenged by the 3rd respondent in W.P. No. 1553 of 1983. Petition was allowed. Matter was remanded. The 3rd respondent stated before the Tribunal that he had filed an application under Section 15 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, inter alia, for resumption of the lands in question, as he is an ex-serviceman and has retired from the Army on 31-7-1991 and within one year from the date of retirement, he had issued notice on 21-5-1992. Thereafter, he had filed an application for resumption of the lands. The possession of the lands bearing Sy. No. 26/1A was surrendered by the respondents and other L.Rs of the deceased Ramappa Gurappa Allapur in 1959 itself. In view of the application alleged to have been filed by respondent 3 under Section 15 of the Act, the Land Tribunal referred the matter to the Tahsildar for adjudication of the same under Section 15 of the Act. The Tahsildar, thereafter has rejected the application of the 3rd respondent in terms of an order dated 13-3-2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent allowed the appeal in terms of the impugned order. Impugned order is challenged on various grounds including a ground of non-compliance of Section 15 of the Act. The petitioner filed an application on 15-7-2005 to bring the L.Rs of 3rd respondent, Subhash Patil. The petitioners wanted to bring on record Smt. Parvathavva, the alleged wife of Subhash Patil as respondent 3(a). I.As were allowed and respondent 3(a) was brought on record. She is represented by a Counsel. The petitioner filed an application on 15-7-2005 to bring the L.Rs of 3rd respondent, Subhash Patil. The petitioners wanted to bring on record Smt. Parvathavva, the alleged wife of Subhash Patil as respondent 3(a). I.As were allowed and respondent 3(a) was brought on record. She is represented by a Counsel. Another I.A. was filed by one Smt. Renuka and Sri Shankar Gowda, wife and son of late Yellappa Gowda to come on record. The application is supported by an affidavit. It is stated therein that respondent 3(a)-Smt. Parvathavva is not known to these applicants. She has not been the wife of 3rd respondent, Subhash Patil. They say that she cannot be accepted as a party. They being the sister-in-law (brother's wife) and nephew (brother's son) are the L.Rs of 3rd respondent. The said application is opposed on the ground that after the death of the 3rd respondent, the defence authorities have sanctioned the pension in favour of the 3rd respondent, after considering the relevant documents. She is receiving pension as on date. In these circumstances, it is pleaded that respondents 3lb) and 3(c) cannot come on record. 2. W.P. No. 11415 of 2003 is again filed by Smt. Siddavva and Paravva challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, Annexure-A, dated 5-7 -2002 in this writ petition. The petitioners are the sisters and daughters of Ramappa S/o. Gurappa Alapur. The said Ramappa filed an application in Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing R.S. No. 50/1 measuring 7 acres 28 guntas, R.S. No. 26/1A measuring 5 acres 25 guntas, situated at Kotagondahunsi in Hubli Taluk. The lands in question were cultivated by the petitioner's father Ramappa. He filed an application in terms of an order dated 19-9-1975. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights. The deceased respondent 2(a) filed a writ petition and the same was allowed. Matter was remanded. In the meanwhile, an application was filed under Section 15 of the Act by the respondent seeking for restoration of possession on the ground that he was retired as soldier after serving the Indian Army. The Tahsildar passed an adverse order. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal in terms of an order dated 22-10-2001. That has been challenged in the connected writ petition in W.P. No. 26247 of 2002. The Tahsildar passed an adverse order. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal in terms of an order dated 22-10-2001. That has been challenged in the connected writ petition in W.P. No. 26247 of 2002. The Tribunal has rejected the application in the light of the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed under Section 15 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal is wrong in rejecting the application on the facts of this case. They want an interference. The petitioners also filed I.As. and I.As. were allowed and respondent-Shankaragouda is represented by Subhash in the light of the death of Subhash, respondent 2(b) was brought on record. Respondent 2(b) is the wife of Subhash Patil. Sri Ganganagouda and Smt. Renuka were also made as parties in the case on hand. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties in the case on hand. 4. In W.P. No. 26247 of 2002, Sri R.L. Patil, learned Counsel takes me through the material on record to say that the grant in terms of the order of the Assistant Commissioner require my interference on the peculiar facts of this case. He points out from the material on record that Section 15 has not been properly complied with and that therefore, the Tahsildar was fully justified in rejecting the case of the contesting respondent. He complains that the Assistant Commissioner without proper application of mind has chosen to provide relief. According to him, the grant of relief in the case on hand by the Assistant Commissioner is not only unsustainable in law, but also against the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. He wants an interference. 5. Insofar as the connected writ petition in W.P. No. 11415 of 2003 is concerned, he says that in the light of an application under Section 15 of the Act, tenancy is factually admitted and that being the position, in the event of this Court setting aside the order passed under Section 15, then his client is to get automatically the occupancy rights in the case on hand. Learned Counsel says that the fate of the connected writ petition would depend upon the fate of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. He also invites my attention to the various material facts and material grounds in support of his contention. 6. Learned Counsel says that the fate of the connected writ petition would depend upon the fate of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. He also invites my attention to the various material facts and material grounds in support of his contention. 6. Per contra, Sri D'sa, learned Counsel says that his clients are the proper parties and in fact in the connected writ petition, he has been made a party by the petitioner. He would urge that his clients are to be heard and at any rate, no relief could be granted to the petitioner, in the absence of proper parties before the authorities. 7. Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3(a) argues that his client is entitled for relief in the case on hand. He says that assuming that the order under Section 15 is bad in law for any reason, whatsoever, even then, there can be no automatic grant in terms of the Land Reforms Act. A notification has to be provided under Section 15 and it is only thereafter the lands could be granted, if at all, to the petitioner. 8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. 9. W.P. No. 26247 of 2002 is directed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner reversing the order of the Tahsildar dated 22-10-2001. Admitted facts would reveal of an application by late Subhash Patil under Section 15 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act seeking for resumption of the lands as an ex-serviceman and has retired from the Army on 31-7-1991. According to him, he issued a proper notice and that therefore, he is entitled for relief under Section 15 of the Act. The Tahsildar, as I mentioned earlier, rejected the same and the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by Subhash. 10. Let me see as to whether the order of the Assistant Commissioner stands the test of law. Original file was made available to me. From the original file, it is seen that a notice dated 21-5-1992 is issued by Sri Subhash Patil to Ramappa Gurappa Allapur. It is sent under certificate of posting. Certificate of posting is enclosed. 10. Let me see as to whether the order of the Assistant Commissioner stands the test of law. Original file was made available to me. From the original file, it is seen that a notice dated 21-5-1992 is issued by Sri Subhash Patil to Ramappa Gurappa Allapur. It is sent under certificate of posting. Certificate of posting is enclosed. Thereafter, an application was filed in Form 7 addressed to the Land Tribunal, Hubli, dated 21-5-1992 and in the said petition, Sri Subhash Patil, seeks for possession of the property in the capacity of landlord, consequent upon the retirement from Indian Army with effect from August 1991. He wants to cultivate the property personally. Certificates are enclosed along with the application. 11. Karnataka Land Reforms Act provides for a statutory procedure in the matter of resumption of land by soldier or seaman. A careful reading of the said section would show that in terms of the sub-section (1) of Section 15, a soldier or a seaman is entitled to resume land to the extent of ceiling whether his tenant is a protected tenant or not. Sub-section (2) provides for in the event of a soldier bona fide requires the land to cultivate personally, issue a notice to the tenant requiring him to deliver possession of the land within the period specified in the notice, which shall not be less than the prescribed period. Sub-section (3) provides for a notice in the case of a soldier in service (at any time not later than one year) from the date on which he is released from the Armed Forces or is sent to the reserve. In the case of seaman, within one year from the date on which he ceases to be a seaman. In the event of the tenants failure to deliver possession of the land within the stipulated period specified in the notice, the soldier or the seaman may make an application to the Tahsildar within whose jurisdiction the greater part of the land is situated, furnishing the prescribed particulars for eviction of the tenant and delivery of possession of the land. The Tahsildar is thereafter to issue a notice and pass orders in terms of Section 15 of the Act. 12. The Tahsildar is thereafter to issue a notice and pass orders in terms of Section 15 of the Act. 12. From the above referred procedure, what is clear to this Court is that a notice has to be provided in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 15 to say that the soldier is requiring the lands bona fide to cultivate the lands personally. It also provides for a prescribed period. In the case on hand, it is seen that admittedly, a notice is sent by certificate of posting. The same is said to have been received on 21-5-1992. 13. Let me see as to whether the notice dated 21-5-1992 and the subsequent receipt under certificate of posting is in compliance with Section 15 of the Act. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Rashid Babubhai Mulani, has considered the service of notice. The Supreme Court has ruled as under: "A certificate of posting obtained by a sender is not comparable to a receipt for sending a communication by registered post. When a letter is sent by registered post, a receipt with serial number is issued and a record is maintained by the post office. But when a mere certificate of posting is sought, no record is maintained by the post office either about the receipt of the letter or the certificate issued. The ease with which such certificates can be procured by affixing antedated seal with the connivance of any employee of the post office is a matter of concern. The Department of Posts may have to evolve some procedure whereby a record in regard to the issuance of certificates is regularly maintained showing a serial number, date, sender's name and addressee's name to avoid misuse. In the absence of such a record, a certificate of posting may be of very little assistance, where the dispatch of such communications is disputed or denied as in this case. Be that as it may". 14. A reading of the said judgment would show that a certificate of posting obtained by a sender is not comparable to a receipt for sending a communication by registered post. It is further seen in this case that the application under Section 15 of the Act has not been addressed to the Tahsildar and it is addressed to the Land Tribunal. It is further seen in this case that the application under Section 15 of the Act has not been addressed to the Tahsildar and it is addressed to the Land Tribunal. There is no prescribed period mentioned in the notice in terms of Section 15 of the Act. Hence, I am of the view that the application is not in strict compliance with Section 15 of the Act. In fact, this Court has considered a similar issue in Mrs. Lilly D'Souza v. Lucy D'Souza and Others and this Court has emphasised the need for proper notice for a proper period as required under Section 15 of the Act. In the case on hand, the receipt is not admitted by the petitioner. That being the position on facts, the Tahsildar, in my view, is justified in holding that the contesting respondent failed to comply with Section 15(2) of the Act. When this order was challenged before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority notices that the contesting respondent has produced the relevant certificate and also the certificate of posting. That would be sufficient according to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, further holds that a notice has been issued within one year. In the light of the denial of notice by the petitioner, the respondent ought to have proved that the notice has been served properly in terms of Section 15(2) of the Act and hence the application itself is maintainable as rightly ruled by the Tahsildar. In my view, the Assistant Commissioner has committed a serious legal error in allowing the appeal in terms of the impugned order without proper consideration of the receipt of notice under Section 15 of the Act. I find substance in the argument of Sri Patil, learned Counsel that the impugned order has to be set aside for non-compliance of Section 15 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 15. The argument of the respondents that there is proper service in terms of the certificate of posting cannot be accepted in the light of a denial and in the light of a positive proof of service on the contesting tenant in terms of Section 15 of the Act. 15. The argument of the respondents that there is proper service in terms of the certificate of posting cannot be accepted in the light of a denial and in the light of a positive proof of service on the contesting tenant in terms of Section 15 of the Act. This argument does not appeal to me particularly in the light of the clear wordings of Section 15 of the Act and also in the light of the judgment of this Court and also the judgment of the Supreme Court. The impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner is therefore liable to be set aside. 16. Insofar as the connected writ petition is concerned, it is an admitted fact that an application was filed seeking for occupancy rights. On an earlier occasion, occupancy rights were granted and the same was challenged in W.P. No. 1556 of 1983. Though there were several respondents, only Sri Subhash S/o. Shankaragouda Patil has chosen to challenge the said order. It was at this stage the matter was remanded. After remand, the Tribunal notices the facts of the case and after noticing, the Tribunal refers to the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22-10-2001, which is assailed in the connected writ petition. It was in the light of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Land Tribunal has chosen to reject the claim for occupancy rights. Now that I have set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the order of the Land Tribunal has to be set aside since the said order is essentially based on the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Land Tribunal order is therefore set aside in the connected writ petition. 17. In the normal circumstances, after setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, this Court could remand the matter for redecision in terms of the Land Reforms Laws. That exercise may not be necessary on the facts of this case in the light of an admitted factum of admitted tenancy of the petitioner by the respondents. In fact, it is only Sri Subhash patil who challenged the proceedings and nobody else in terms of the material facts. That very application of Section 15 by Subhash Patil would show that there is a clear admission of tenancy by the petitioner's father. Unless tenancy is available, the possession under Section 15 would not arise in terms of Land Reforms Laws. That very application of Section 15 by Subhash Patil would show that there is a clear admission of tenancy by the petitioner's father. Unless tenancy is available, the possession under Section 15 would not arise in terms of Land Reforms Laws. Therefore, once, a tenancy is admitted there is no need for any remand by the Court. Any remand would be a waste of time, money and energy to all concerned. Moreover, these proceedings are pending for more than 3 decades. There is also no quarrel with regard to tenancy even in this Court, in terms of the material available on record. In these circumstances, I deem it proper not only to set aside the order but also to declare that the petitioner is entitled for occupancy rights on the peculiar facts of this case. A further direction is issued to the Land Tribunal to issue Form 10 on the facts of this case in the light of this case. 18. At this stage, I must further notice the argument for Sri D'sa, learned Counsel that respondents are also to be heard and that exercise has not been done in this case. In the normal circumstances, I would have accepted the plea but what cannot be forgotten in the case on hand is that Subhash Patil filed a petition in W.P. No. 1556 of 1983 and in the said petition, it is categorically stated that the impugned land in question fell to his share and the family partition in the year 1960. He further admits that these lands were mortgaged and thereafter, mortgage was redeemed by him. In the light of this assertion way back in 1983, this Court is not impressed of the arguments that these lands may also to be available to others as argued by Sri D'sa, learned Counsel. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the argument that the matter requires to be remanded for the purpose of hearing of others in the case on hand. The only person who was prosecuted these proceedings is Subhash Patil in terms of the material on record. He has been heard and that therefore, remand is unnecessary on the facts of this case. 19. The only person who was prosecuted these proceedings is Subhash Patil in terms of the material on record. He has been heard and that therefore, remand is unnecessary on the facts of this case. 19. At this stage, I must further notice one more argument advanced by Sri Subhahit, learned Counsel that assuming this Court accepts that Section 15 order is bad in law even then, according to him, in terms of Section 15(6) a notification has to be issued and it is only thereafter the petitioners can be registered as occupants in law. A reading of Section 15(6) would show that "where the Tahsildar, on application by the tenant or otherwise and after such enquiry as may be prescribed, is satisfied that a notice as required by sub-section (2) is not issued, he "hall, by notification, declare that with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the land leased shall stand transferred to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The Tahsildar may take possession of the land in the prescribed manner and the tenant shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant thereof. The provisions of Section 45 shall mutatis mutandis apply in this behalf. 20. A notification in my view is unnecessary on the peculiar facts of this case in the light of admitted tenancy. Article 226 is fairly wide enough to provide earlier relief instead of delayed relief on the basis of a technical objection in a matter like this. This case is lingering for more than 30 years and it has gone up and down in terms of the material available on record. In these circumstances, as a special case, I deem it proper to direct the Land Tribunal to accept Form 7 and provide tenancy to the petitioner. I further deem it proper to direct the Tribunal to provide Form 10 on the facts and circumstances of this case. 21. Before concluding, I would be failing in my duty, if I do not consider the plea made by Sri D'sa, learned Counsel with regard to a dispute in the matter of L.Rs. Admitted facts would reveal that the proceedings were initiated by Sri Subhash Patil. 21. Before concluding, I would be failing in my duty, if I do not consider the plea made by Sri D'sa, learned Counsel with regard to a dispute in the matter of L.Rs. Admitted facts would reveal that the proceedings were initiated by Sri Subhash Patil. Since, I have come to a conclusion on facts that Shankar Gowda Patil during his lifetime has failed to issue a notice under Section 15(2) of the Act resulting in his losing 15 proceedings. In these circumstances and on the facts of this case, I do not think I should consider L.Rs issue in the case on hand. 22. In the result, both the petitions are allowed. The order of the Assistant Commissioner and the order Land Tribunal are set aside. A writ in the nature of a direction is issued to the Tribunal to accept his Form 7 and to issue Form 10 to the petitioners. Compliance is two months from today. No costs.