ORDER N.K. Patil, J : Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 8th November 2005 passed in Appeal No.117/1996 (REV) on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure-G, has presented the instant writ petition. 2. Petitioner, claiming to be an ex-serviceman and a disabled person having lost his left leg in the land mine blast, had filed the application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question and on the ground that his name was appearing in the cultivator's column of the record of rights and due to ignorance and illiteracy, being a rustic villager, the father of the petitioner did not file Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land measuring 14 acres 21 guntas in Sy. No.63 situate at Sulkhod village, Basavana Bagewadi Taluk, Bijapur District. Accordingly, appropriate proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar, Basavana Bagewadi under Section 58 of the Land Reforms Act and passed an order dated 24th October, 1990 vesting the land in Government on the ground that, the first respondent was cultivating the said land contrary to law as tenant and accordingly, held that, the land was vested in Government under Section 58 of the Land Reforms Act. Be that as it may, petitioner has filed the application for grant of land before second respondent and the second respondent in pursuance of the application filed by petitioner and the report of the Tahsildar dated 14th November, 1990 and also the communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur dated 20th December, 1989 in proceedings No.LRM-CR-196:90-91 has passed the order dated 18th February, 1991 vide Annexure-C, exercising the power under Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act and granted the land in question in favour of the petitioner subject to six conditions. Questioning the correctness of the said order passed by the second respondent dated 18th February 1991 vide Annexure-C, the first respondent herein has filed the Appeal N 0.117/1996 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, at Bangalore. The Tribunal, dismissed the said appeal by its order on 8th November 2005 after hearing both sides, and after going through the entire original records and with reference to Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act. Further, the Appellate Tribunal, observed that, the distribution of land should be with notice to the public and 50% of the said land ought to have been granted to SC/ST people. Further, the Appellate Tribunal, observed that, the distribution of land should be with notice to the public and 50% of the said land ought to have been granted to SC/ST people. Furthermore, under the Rules 26-AA, 26-B and. 27-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, an ex-military personnel cannot be granted to hold more than one unit of land and subject to his income should not be exceeded 2,000/- per annum. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, the land granted in favour of the petitioner is contrary to the aforesaid Rules and allowed the appeal by assigning valid reasons at paragraph 11 of its order and set aside the order passed b the second respondent dated 18th February, 1991 and remitted the matter back to the second respondent for fresh disposal as per law. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 8th November, 2005 passed in Appeal No.1l7/1996 and seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. 3. The principal ground urged by petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the impugned order passed by Appellate Tribunal is illegal and without reference to the objections filed by petitioner against the application filed by the first respondent for condonation of delay. It is the case of petitioner that, the matter was heard and reserved for orders in the month of March 2005. The Tribunal ought not to have passed the order after lapse of seven months without posting the matter for further hearing and hence, the said order is liable to be set aside. It is the further case of petitioner that, the Appellate Tribunal has proceeded to pass the impugned order without following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.5398/1999 disposed of on 6th March, 2003 (Mahadevappa Vs. Sadashivappa and Others) and also without looking into the written statement filed before the Trial Court in 0.8: No. 153 of 1989, wherein petitioner has stated that, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment from the date of his forefathers, i.e., since the year 1952. Sadashivappa and Others) and also without looking into the written statement filed before the Trial Court in 0.8: No. 153 of 1989, wherein petitioner has stated that, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment from the date of his forefathers, i.e., since the year 1952. It is the further case of petitioner that, he being an ex-service man, he has been put in possession in the year 1981 and thereafter, he has improved the land considerably by raising loan and investing his entire savings and that, he does not have any source of income except the land in question. Despite having clear knowledge about all these, the respondents have kept silent and there is inordinate delay and laches and the doctrine of finality would apply and the Tribunal ought not to have condoned the delay without appreciating the injury and hardship caused to the petitioner. It is the further case of petitioner that, the Tribunal, before giving finding on the merits of the case, ought to have taken into consideration the entire facts of the case, under which the land is granted in favour of petitioner, inasmuch as petitioner is a soldier who lost his leg in land mine blast and that, the land in question has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner since the time of his forefathers since 1952. It is his further case that, the Tribunal, instead of taking a lenient view in favour of the petitioner, has adopted technical approach and set aside the order of grant, at this distance of time, that too, at the instance of person who was not the owner as on the date of vesting and whose title has been doubtful. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside at the threshold itself. 4. After, careful perusal of the principal ground urged by the petitioner, as referred above, including the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, what emerges is that, the land in question originally belongs to one Smt. Sabawwa. The first respondent is claiming the right in pursuance of the alleged will executed, by the said Smt. Sabawwa dated 15th December, 1987, who died on 2nd January, 1989. Thereafter, he has, been cultivating the land in question and the third respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 58 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The first respondent is claiming the right in pursuance of the alleged will executed, by the said Smt. Sabawwa dated 15th December, 1987, who died on 2nd January, 1989. Thereafter, he has, been cultivating the land in question and the third respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 58 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. After conducting the enquiry, he has submitted the report to the jurisdictional authority, holding that, the land in question is resumed to Government. Be that as it may, petitioner claiming to be cultivating the land in question since the date of his forefathers as tenant, has filed the application on the ground that, his father did not file Form No.7 due to ignorance and illiteracy and being a rustic villager. Petitioner being an ex-serviceman and also a physically disabled person, as he has lost his left leg while in service in the army, filed necessary application for grant of the said land before the 'second respondent and also submitted his representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur District, Bijapur. The said authority, in turn, referred the matter to the second respondent to consider his application. The Assistant Commissioner, exercising his power as envisaged under Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, has granted the land in question in favour of petitioner in the year 1991. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been questioned by the first respondent before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal in turn, after conducting enquiry, after affording opportunity to both parties, after considering the relevant material available and on the basis of the pleadings of both parties, has framed necessary points for consideration, as to viz. 1) Whether the appellant is having sufficient reason to condone the delay? 2). Whether the impugned order sustains in the eye of law? And 3) To what order ? The Tribunal after critical evaluation of the relevant material available on file and after affording opportunity to the respective Counsel appearing for the parties, has answered the point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and point No.3 as per its final order. The Tribunal, by its final order, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur dated 18th December, 1991 and remitted the matter back to second respondent for reconsideration afresh. The Tribunal, by its final order, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur dated 18th December, 1991 and remitted the matter back to second respondent for reconsideration afresh. It is significant to note that, the Tribunal has placed heavy reliance on Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act read with Rule 26-AA of the Land Reforms Rules and specifically recorded after critical evaluation of oral and documentary evidence and recording a finding that, the land granted by the Assistant Commissioner, the second respondent herein in favour of petitioner, who is an ex-military personnel and that, the distribution of land should be with notice to the public and 50% of the said land ought to have been granted to SC/ST category people. Further more under Rules 26-AA, 26-B and 27-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, an ex-military personnel cannot be granted to hold more than one unit of land and subject to his Income should not exceed Rs. 2,000/ per annum. These relevant factors are not at all taken into consideration by the second respondent at the time of disposal of the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained and the same has been passed contrary to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Rules. Admittedly, as rightly pointed out by the Appellate Tribunal, in fact, Rule 26-AA stipulates that, out of the surplus land vesting in the State Government as specified in Section 77, and remaining after reservation for any public purpose under sub-section (3) of Section 77, fifty per cent shall be reserved for grant to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The land so reserved shall be distributed to the following categories to the extent not exceeding one unit each in the following order of preference. 1. Dispossessed tenants who are not registered as occupants; 2. Displaced tenants having no land; 3. Landless agricultural labourers; 4. Landless persons and ex-military personnel whose gross annual income does not exceed {2,000/not exceeding one unit each; Released bonded labourers; and in respect of other persons residing in villages of the same panchayat and whose gross annual income does not exceed ~2,000/- not more than the extent required to make up one unit. 5. Landless agricultural labourers; 4. Landless persons and ex-military personnel whose gross annual income does not exceed {2,000/not exceeding one unit each; Released bonded labourers; and in respect of other persons residing in villages of the same panchayat and whose gross annual income does not exceed ~2,000/- not more than the extent required to make up one unit. 5. Therefore, I am of the view that, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material and that, the said order is in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Rules, 1974, as referred above. Therefore, interference by this Court is not justifiable in view of well-settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments nor I find any good grounds to interfere in the impugned order, by exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the jurisdictional authority to reconsider this ground alone. Therefore, interference is not justifiable exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Taking into consideration all these factors and in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I decline to interfere in the well considered order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.