JUDGMENT : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents 10 and 11. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks. Since there is delay in filing the appeal, application in I.A. No. 1 of 2013 is filed seeking condonation of delay. In order to consider whether any purpose would be served in issuing notice to the private respondents to consider the application for condonation of delay, we have deemed it proper to hear the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate on the merits of the case. 2. The appellant was before the learned Single Judge assailing the order dated 20-1-2003 and the order dated 24-2-2013 passed by the Land Tribunal which were impugned at Annexures-F and G to the writ petition. The said two orders were passed by the Land Tribunal while considering the case of the 1st respondent seeking occupancy rights in respect of the extent of the land indicated in Form 7 and the 2nd order was passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of the proceedings under Sections 66 and 67(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 to enquire as to whether the landowner had possessed lands in excess of the ceiling limit as provided under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The appellant herein is neither a tenant nor a joint owner of the properties. The case of the appellant is that if ultimately the land in respect of which the proceedings under Section 66of the Act was held is declared to be excess and if the land is vested with the Government, the appellant's claim for grant of the said land would be considered. 3. It is in that circumstance the appellant contends that the orders presently passed are not in accordance with the law. To contend so, the learned Counsel for the appellant would also refer to the order dated 4-10-2001, passed in W.P. No. 22306 of 1998 wherein at the first instance when the Government had filed the said writ petition against the order passed by the Land Tribunal, this Court had directed that the proceedings relating to Form 7 and Form 11 be considered together. 4. 4. It is the grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant that despite such direction the Tribunal has presently passed the order separately and the fact that the order relating to Form 7 had preceded the proceedings under Section 66 of the Act, the manner of consideration of the excess holding has been prejudiced. 5. At the outset it is necessary to notice that though this Court had directed that the proceedings be clubbed, the consideration ordered is to be independent. Be that as it may, the right of the 1st respondent seeking occupancy rights in any event cannot be prejudiced by any other factor if he establishes that he is the tenant. Hence the claim of the 1st respondent by filing Form 7 in any event required consideration by the Tribunal and only thereafter the question of the extent of land holding by the owner would arise for consideration. 6. In any event the appellant who was not a party to the proceedings cannot make any grievance with regard to the independent orders at Annexures-F and G being passed by the Tribunal. At this juncture what is also necessary to be noticed is that the appellant at an earlier instance was before the Principal Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 27430 of 1994. The Court while disposing of the writ petition on 4-10-2001 has held that the grievance put forth by the appellant herein cannot be considered to be in public interest. Though liberty had been granted to the appellant to avail his remedies in accordance with law, the appellant has not thought it fit to approach any Forum including the Land Tribunal, but has presented the instant petition for the first time after the orders were passed by the Land Tribunal. 7. Hence if all these aspects are kept in view, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified not only in holding that the appellant has no locus standi and the case put forth by the appellant on merits also cannot be considered. 8. In that view, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. I.A. No. 1 of 2013 is therefore disposed of as unnecessary.