JUDGMENT : Order dated 21.09.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition has been called in question in this writ appeal. 2. Appellant herein filed the Writ petition challenging order dated 16.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Jewargi, thereby holding that total extent of holdings of the declarant was 91 acres 9 guntas and therefore excess land over and above 54 acres had to be surrendered. The declarant Nagappa’s family consisted of five members and therefore the Tribunal held that he was entitled to hold 10 units i.e. 54 acres of dry land. The declarant was therefore, required to surrender the excess land. 3. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the tribunal would further disclose that there was already an order passed determining the surplus land and declarant was given a notice on 21.08.1980 requesting him to furnish statement showing the particulars of lands to be surrendered and declarant had agreed to give particulars of lands to be surrendered within three days. If that was so, there was no need for the tribunal to again determine the extent of holding of the declarant. Be that as it may, perusal of the records made available before us makes it clear that tribunal has not examined the details of the members of the family, how much extent of land the family was entitled to hold having regard to the total number of members of the family, their age and entitlement. 4. Declaration filed by the declarant Nagappa in Form No.11 discloses that he had filed declaration on 23.08.1974. In the declaration he has made it clear that his father Bhagwantaraya had expired in the year 1973 and there was a partition entered into between himself and his two sisters by name Avamma and Laxmibai and as per the partition certain lands had been allotted to the share of his sisters. The said partition has been evidenced by a registered partition deed dated 19.08.1974. A copy of the partition deed has been produced along with the writ petition at Annexure-A. The declaration filed by the declarant. Nagappa, shows that he had two wives by name Gurusiddawwa and Putalibai and three daughters by name Indirabai, Sushilabai and Saraswati. It was apparent that Nagappa the declarant along with his two sisters had succeeded to the estate of his deceased father Bhagwantaraya upon the death of Bhagwantaraya in the year 1973. Nagappa, shows that he had two wives by name Gurusiddawwa and Putalibai and three daughters by name Indirabai, Sushilabai and Saraswati. It was apparent that Nagappa the declarant along with his two sisters had succeeded to the estate of his deceased father Bhagwantaraya upon the death of Bhagwantaraya in the year 1973. The two sisters were entitled in law to claim partition of their share in the family lands as per the Hindu Succession Act. The tribunal ought to have examined the case of declarant, as he had specifically stated about the death of his father and partition having taken place between himself and his sisters prior to filing of the declaration. Order passed by the tribunal does not refer to any of these details. It does not refer to the contents of the declaration made by the declarant nor does it refer to the details regarding the members of the family and their relationship with the declarant. It has passed a non-speaking order. 5. Unfortunately, declarant Nagappa died in the year 1991. His son Bhagwantharaya filed writ petition in the year 2007. In paragraph No.6 of the writ petition, he has explained the delay stating that he was a minor aged about 10 years as on the date when the land tribunal passed the order in the year 1981. His father was not aware of the order dated 16.10.1981 passed by the tribunal. His father died in the year 1991. No proceedings were initiated pursuant to the order passed by the tribunal. Only during the year 2007, Revenue Inspector came to the land to take possession stating that there was an order passed by the land tribunal. Thereafter, petitioner having obtained necessary documents, filed the above writ petition. 6. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that order of the year 1981 was challenged during September 2007 and therefore such an inordinate delay could not be condoned. Learned Single Judge has further found that partition dated 19.08.1974 entered into between the family members of declarant after 01.03.1974, could not be taken into account while deciding the matter because the partition appeared to be an after thought one. 7. In the background of the above, we have carefully examined the entire materials on record. Learned Single Judge has further found that partition dated 19.08.1974 entered into between the family members of declarant after 01.03.1974, could not be taken into account while deciding the matter because the partition appeared to be an after thought one. 7. In the background of the above, we have carefully examined the entire materials on record. As regards the question of delay, we are fully conscious of the fact that, if on account of delay any third party interest is created, it would be impermissible to reopen the matter as it would affect third party rights. It is for this reason, we directed the learned Addl. Government Advocate to find out whether any particular land had been taken over to Government and distributed to land less persons. Pursuant to this direction, learned Addl. Government Advocate has filed a memo dated 04.11.2016 enclosing the report submitted by the Village Accountant of Jewargi Taluk as directed by Tahsildar and addressed to the Tahsildar. The said report dated 13.10.2016, makes it clear that land bearing Sy.No 339 measuring 13 acres 11 guntas and Sy.No.340 measuring 20 acres situated at Yathanoor Village in Jewargi Taluk, were in possession and enjoyment of the land owners. Even the record of rights produced by the learned Addl. Government Advocate along with the memo disclose that the lands have been standing in the name of family of Bhagwantharaya Biradar. This exercise was undertaken by us calling for the report regarding the actual position as the petitioner had produced an order, which disclosed that there was allotment of excess land in favour of certain persons as per order dated 20.05.1982. It is clear that, this order was not given effect to and no third party interest has been created. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submits on instructions and has indeed stated in the memo that possession of the lands was not given to the allottees. 8. Therefore, keeping in mind this fact, we have examined the delay. Though the delay is long and inordinate, nature of the order passed by the tribunal, the nature of right of which the petitioner and his family are deprived of by virtue of the said order and the need for adjudication of the dispute on merits regarding the extent of land which the petitioner is entitled to hold, we are of the considered view that this matter deserves to be examined on merits. 9. 9. Petitioner was only a minor aged about 10 years, when the tribunal passed the order. His father passed away in the year 1991. His father had actually stated in the declaration that there was a partition in the family where under certain properties had been allotted to the share of his sisters. If that is so, sisters of the present petitioner who were entitled in law to succeed to the estate of their deceased father along with their brother were entitled to be heard. They have not been made parties to the proceedings. They would be deprived of their right to a share in the properties. Though they are entitled by way of succession or by way of the effect of the registered partition, present order would defeat the rights of the family. 10. While the provisions pertaining to sealing on holdings enacted as per the Land Reforms Act, require a person holding excess lands to surrender the same to Government, by virtue of the said provision, a person who may not actually possess excess lands cannot be forced to surrender lands from his holdings which he is entitled to own, possess and enjoy. 11. Therefore, we are of the view that learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the registered partition entered into on 19.08.1974 was an after thought and could not be relied upon because it was entered into after 01.03.1974. As long as, the two sisters of petitioner (daughters of deceased Bhagwantharaya) had right under the law of succession to succeed to the estate of their deceased father, their rights cannot be ignored while deciding the extent of holdings of Nagappa’s family. Therefore, the registered partition deed though effected after 01.03.1974 requires to be taken note of to determine the rights and the extent of holding of Nagappa and his two sisters. Hence, the matter deserves to be examined afresh by the tribunal by passing a speaking order keeping in mind the observations made above. 12. In the result and for the foregoing, this appeal is allowed. Order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 16.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal impugned in the writ petition are set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration to the Land Tribunal Jewargi. 12. In the result and for the foregoing, this appeal is allowed. Order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 16.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal impugned in the writ petition are set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration to the Land Tribunal Jewargi. The Land Tribunal shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner and to the two sisters of deceased Nagappa by name Awwamma W/o: Rayappa Kiranagi and Laxmiabi W/o: Bhimsha Chatagi, provide opportunity to all of them and pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the declaration filed by Nagappa in Form No.11. Interim applications IA.No.1/2008 and IA.No.1/2016 are disposed of as having become unnecessary. The records of the land tribunal shall be dispatched to the tribunal forthwith.