Judgment : Patil, J. 1. Appellants, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Order date 7th January, 2013, passed by the Learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.69796/2012, have presented this writ appeal. 2. In the original petition filed by these appellants, they had sought for reviewing (recalling) the Order dated 5th July, 1996 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.25925/1991 vide Annexure F therein and thereby restore the Order dated 10th December, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Gadag in No. KLA:SR:111+55 at Annexure E therein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the predecessor of respondents 3 to 12 herein, viz., Ramappa Venkappa Shidnekoppa, i.e., the original applicant had filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing R.S.No.118/1, measuring 12 acres 21 guntas, situate at Kalasapur Village, Gadag Taluk and District. The said application came to be rejected by the second respondent-Land Tribunal, Gadag. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Land Tribunal, the original applicant questioned the same by filing Writ Petition No. 12963/1978. That petition had come up for consideration before Learned Single Judge on 5th April, 1983 and Learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and quashed the Order dated 7th November, 1978 passed by the second respondent-Land Tribunal, Gadag, with a direction to the Land Tribunal to decide the matter after holding an enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules. The second respondent, in turn, after considering the matter in detail, passed and order on 10th December, 1987, once again rejecting Form No.7 filed by the original applicant, viz., Ramappa Venkappa Shidnekoppa. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 10th December, 1987, the original applicant, Ramappa Venkappa Shidnekoppa and his brother Hanamappa Venkappa Shidnekoppa filed L.R.A.No.288/1987 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad. In view of the am endment brought to the Land Reforms Act, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was abolished and the parties were permitted to file a civil petition under Section 17 of the amended Act. Accordingly, the predecessor of respondents 3 to 12 filed Civil Petition No.907/1990 and the same was converted into Writ Petition No.25925/1991. In view of the am endment brought to the Land Reforms Act, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was abolished and the parties were permitted to file a civil petition under Section 17 of the amended Act. Accordingly, the predecessor of respondents 3 to 12 filed Civil Petition No.907/1990 and the same was converted into Writ Petition No.25925/1991. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Learned Single Judge on 5th July, 1996 who allowed the petition and set-aside the Order dated 10th December, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal in proceedings No. KLR/SR/111/Gadag and directed the Land Tribunal to pass appropriate order on Form No. 7 filed by the original applicant, now represented by respondents 3 to 12, in light of the observation regarding sufficiency of the evidence on record by the original applicant, (represented by respondents 3 to 12) in support of their claim for registration of occupancy rights, in respect of the land in question. Be that as it may, being aggrieved by the Order dated 5th July, 1996 of Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991, the appellants herein filed Writ Petition No. 69796/2012, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the said order passed by the Land Tribunal, on the ground that they are not party to the proceedings and the order had been passed ex-parte and therefore, sought review or recall of the Order dated 5th July, 1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991 so as to restore the Order dated 10th December, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Gadag in proceedings No. KLR/SR/111+55. 4. The said Writ Petition had come up for consideration before Learned Single Judge and Learned Single Judge, by his Order dated 7th January, 2013 dismissed the said writ petition, reserving liberty to the appellants to seek leave of the Court to file an appeal. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellants are before this Court, praying to set-aside the impugned order. 5. The principal submission canvassed by Learned Counsel appearing for appellants, Shri. M.G. Naganuri, at the outset is that, the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 69796/2012 is liable to be granted. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellants are before this Court, praying to set-aside the impugned order. 5. The principal submission canvassed by Learned Counsel appearing for appellants, Shri. M.G. Naganuri, at the outset is that, the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 69796/2012 is liable to be granted. To substantiate his submission, he submitted that Learned Single Judge failed to apply the law laid down in the case of Shivadevo Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others ( AIR 1963 SC 1909 ) which is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case ant that the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge is not only cryptic, but bereft of reasons. 6. Further, Learned Counsel Submitted that Learned Single Judge had, in the Order dated 5th July, 1996, passed in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991, failed to note that the Court shall not make authoritative observations touching the merits of the case while passing the order of remand inasmuch as the authority below would be bound by the same and therefore, those observations were liable to be set-aside. 7. He also submitted that Learned Single Judge had erred in observing that the appellants may seek leave of the Court to file appeal. The said observation also is unsustainable in law and is therefore, liable to be set-aside. 8. Finally, he submitted that, the Land Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Learned Single Judge in both the writ petitions referred above and liberty may be reserved to the appellants to adduce oral and documentary evidence and also to file written arguments to substantiate their stand. 9. After careful consideration of the submissions of Learned Counsel appearing for appellants and after perusal of the entire material available on file, it emerges that the original applicant, viz., Ramappa Venkappa Shidnekoppa had filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of R.S. No. 118/1, measuring 12 acres 21 guntas situate at Kalasapur Village, Gadag Taluk and the same is not in dispute. It is their case that they were cultivating the land in question since agricultural years 196566 to 1977-78 and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is their case that they were cultivating the land in question since agricultural years 196566 to 1977-78 and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. When the application for registration of occupancy rights had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, on more that two occasions, the same has been rejected. When the Writ Petition No. 25925/1991 filed by the original applicant and his brother had come up for consideration before Learned single Judge on 5th July, 1996 vide Annexure F, Learned Single Judge has specifically considered and observed the said aspect after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order. It is categorically stated that, the claim of the original applicants had been mainly rejected on the ground that for the year 1973-74, the land had been shown as barren as the cultivator’s column in column No. 12(2) in the Pahani was left blank and that there was no evidence to show that the original applicants were cultivating the land in the year 1973-74. Further in column No. 13(9) the nature of crop grown was shown as groundnut, wheat, cotton, toor. All these aspects have been rightly considered by Learned Single Judge and accordingly, set-aside the Order dated 17th November, 1987 passed by Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back to Land Tribunal, to pass appropriate order on Form No. 7 in light of the observation regarding sufficiency of the evidence on record by the original applicants. 10. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal, upon remand, has rightly issued individual notices to the appellants herein on 21st June, 2012 in the prescribed Form No.9 under Rule 10 vide Annexure G, intimating to participate in the proceedings of the Land Tribunal and to put forth their say in the matter. 10. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal, upon remand, has rightly issued individual notices to the appellants herein on 21st June, 2012 in the prescribed Form No.9 under Rule 10 vide Annexure G, intimating to participate in the proceedings of the Land Tribunal and to put forth their say in the matter. But, instead of appearing before the Land Tribunal and filing their written arguments, if any, by way of reply to the notice at Annexure G, Showing that they were the landlords in respect of the land in question and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of land in question, they have taken hyper-technical ground that they were not parties before Learned Single Judge in the Writ proceedings and that the order had been passed behind their back and hence, they were entitled to file fresh writ petition, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the Order dated 5th July, 1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991. Such stand of Learned Counsel appearing for appellants and the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ appeal cannot be accepted and are liable to be rejected at the threshold for the reason that in proceedings No. KLR/SR/111+55, on the file of the second respondent-Land Tribunal, Gadag, produced at Annexure E dated 10th December, 1987, the name of deceased Hanamant Shankarrao Kulkarni is shown as being represented by his power of attorney holder, Shri. K.S. Kulkarni, resident of Kalasapura and he was the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991. On the other hand, the appellants have not produced any document to show that he was not represented as power of attorney holder for the deceased. It was duty cast on Shri. K.S. Kulkarni, who is none other than the uncle of the appellants herein to have brought to the notice of the Land Tribunal, when the matter was taken up and file necessary application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Shri. Hanamant Shankarrao Kulkarni on record. Moreover, it was the duty of the legal representatives of the deceased to have come on record themselves upon the death of the deceased. 11. It is further pertinent to note that the order passed by Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991 was on 5th July, 1996 and the appellants have filed writ petition on 13th September, 2012 and there was inordinate delay of nearly one and a half decades. 11. It is further pertinent to note that the order passed by Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991 was on 5th July, 1996 and the appellants have filed writ petition on 13th September, 2012 and there was inordinate delay of nearly one and a half decades. That has neither been properly explained nor are cogent reasons assigned, except for taking a stand that they were not party to the proceedings. The same cannot be accepted, that too, when the Land Tribunal had rightly issued individual notices dated 21st June, 2012 to all these appellants. Hence, interference by this Court, at this distance of time, is uncalled for. However, if it is the grievance of appellants that the observation made by Learned Single Judge at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order dated 5th July, 1996 in writ Petition No. 25925/1991 and in Writ Petition No. 69796/2012 would come in the way of the Land Tribunal deciding the matter on merits, then it is only their apprehension of no consequence. 12. However, it is clarified that the Land Tribunal, Gadag shall decide the matter on merits on the basis of material placed before it, in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules read with Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants and respondents 3 to 12 and any other interested persons, without being influenced by the observations made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order dated 5th July, 1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991 or the observation made in Writ Petition No. 69796/2012. 13. With these observations, the writ appeal filed by appellants stands disposed of with a direction to the Land Tribunal, Gadag to dispose of the matter, in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules read with Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, without being influenced by the observations made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order dated 5th July, 1996 of Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25925/1991 or the observation made in Writ Petition No. 69796/2012 on 7th January, 2013, as expeditiously as possible. Liberty is reserved to the appellants and contesting respondents to adduce their oral and documentary evidence and to file their written arguments, if any along with authenticated documents, to substantiate their stand. Liberty is reserved to the appellants and contesting respondents to adduce their oral and documentary evidence and to file their written arguments, if any along with authenticated documents, to substantiate their stand. In the event such application is filed, the Land Tribunal, Gadag, shall consider and dispose of the same, as directed above, as expeditiously as possible. Since the writ appeal is disposed of, I.A.I./2013 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.