JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. 1. In this appeal, petitioner/appellant is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 9th July, 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7824 of 2007 (LR) (B. Sanjeeva Shetty v. Land Tribunal, Udupi), wherein, the petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21-4-2006 passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi, has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case in hand are: The suit schedule land has fallen to the share of late Sindhu Shedthi as per the registered partition deed dated 3-2-1961. She died intestate. After her death, appellant's mother, Jalaja Shedthi and her sisters Girija Shedthi and Sarojini Shedthi are equally entitled for the share in the suit schedule property. Be that as it may. In order to defeat the legitimate rights of appellant's mother, her sisters Girija Shedthi and Sarojini Shedthi have colluded between themselves and challenged the order dated 6-9-1979 passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of one Gopal Shetty represented by 3rd respondent in W.P. No. 26987 of 1996. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 25-11-2002, the order dated 6-9-1979 has been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the Land Tribunal, to dispose of the same afresh after due notice to the parties and after affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence. After the remand, the Land Tribunal took up the matter for consideration afresh on 21-4-2006. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 21-4-2006 has dismissed the claim of the sisters of the appellant's mother, on the sole ground that they have submitted that they have withdrawn their writ petition and confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 6-9-1979. After the remand, the Land Tribunal took up the matter for consideration afresh on 21-4-2006. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 21-4-2006 has dismissed the claim of the sisters of the appellant's mother, on the sole ground that they have submitted that they have withdrawn their writ petition and confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 6-9-1979. The said order passed by the Land Tribunal, confirming the occupancy rights granted in favour of one Sri Gopal Shetty represented by respondents 3 and 4 in writ appeal is contrary to the material on records and in fact, the order dated 6-9-1979 has been already set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to the Karnataka Land Tribunal on 25-11-2002 in W.P. No. 26987 of 1996 and therefore, the Tribunal is duty-bound to conduct the enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 read with Section 34 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 26987 of 1996. Against the order dated 21-4-2006 passed by the Land Tribunal, the petitioner/appellant has filed W.P. No. 7824 of 2007 before the learned Single judge. The learned Single Judge, has dismissed the said petition on 9-7-2012. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant/petitioner has presented this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, for Sri S.K. Acharya, appearing for appellant, learned Counsel Sri Balakrishna G. Shastri appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant/petitioner has presented this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, for Sri S.K. Acharya, appearing for appellant, learned Counsel Sri Balakrishna G. Shastri appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3. After careful perusal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi, dated 21-4-2006 in proceeding No. LRY:76-520/TRI-8456/79-80 as per Annexure-A produced along with writ petition and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9-7-2012 in W.P. No. 7824 of 2007, it is manifest on the face of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi, that, the Land Tribunal has committed an error in proceeding to pass the order contrary to the directions issued by this Court on 25th November, 2002 in W.P. No. 26987 of 1996, wherein, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 6-9-1979 passed by the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal, Udupi, to dispose of the same afresh after due notice to the parties and after affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence. It is crystal clear from the order of the Land Tribunal, Udupi, dated 21-4-2006 that, no enquiry as such has been conducted by the Land Tribunal as envisaged under Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules read with Section 34 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In view of non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court as referred above, the order passed by the Land Tribunal, dated 21-4-2006 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. It appears that, in view of non-assistance by the Counsel who represented the parties before the learned Single Judge and not bringing to his notice that the order dated 6-9-1979 passed by the Land Tribunal has been quashed and the matter has been remitted back to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration by order dated 25-11-2002 in W.P. No. 26987 of 1996, learned Single judge has dismissed the said writ petition since the order of the Land Tribunal has become final. The said reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the material available on record, which are produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. This fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. The said reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the material available on record, which are produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. This fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. Therefore, we do not propose to express any views on the merits and demerits of the case as it is the specific case of the respondents 3 and 4 that appellant has no locus standi to question the said order, on the ground that Sindhu Shedthi has conceded before the Land Tribunal to grant tenancy in favour of one Gopal Shetty and therefore, the matter has to be considered by the Land Tribunal after conducting thorough enquiry under Rule 17 of Land Reforms Rules read with Section 34 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated supra, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The order dated 21-4-2006 passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi, in proceeding No. LRY:76-520/TRI-8456/79-80 and the order dated 9-7-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7824 of 2007 are hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the first respondent, Land Tribunal, Udupi, to reconsider the same afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for both the parties are left open.