ORDER : 1. The petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the Order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the Land Tribunal, Nanjanagudu, vide Annexure-G. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that their father late Chikkanarasaiah, was cultivating the lands bearing Sy.Nos.119/4, 123/2 and 142 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas, 2 acres 35 guntas and 1 acre 27 guntas respectively, situated at Deveerammanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjanagudu Taluk, as a tenant. 3. The petitioners’ father filed Form No.7 in respect of the said lands. On the first occasion, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners’ father by the Order dated 05.03.1979 on the ground that though sufficient opportunity was given to the tenant to put forth his case, he has not put in his appearance. Thereafter, petitioners’ father filed application under Section 77A in Form No.7A. The said application also came to be rejected by the Order dated 29.03.2001. Both the Orders passed by the land Tribunal dated 05.03.1979 and 29.03.2001 were subject matter of W.P.No.9291/2002. This court, after hearing both the parties, by the Order dated 26.03.2007 dismissed the writ petition. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the father of the present petitioners filed W.A.No.1278/2007 and the Division Bench of this Court, by the Order dated 06.01.2009, allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the Order passed by the learned single Judge and also quashed the Order dated 05.03.1979 and 29.03.2001 and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration of Form No.7 filed by the tenant and also directed the Land Tribunal to put forth the case and consider the application in accordance with law and also to dispose off the matter not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said Order. 5. It is further case of the petitioners that, petitioners neighbours appeared before the Land Tribunal to adduce evidence. But the Land Tribunal, did not allow the neighbours of the petitioners to adduce their evidence on behalf of the petitioners and did not record the evidence. The petitioners filed affidavits of neighbours before this Court as per Annexures E1, E2 and E3 to the effect that they appeared before the Land Tribunal to give evidence on behalf of the petitioners, but the Land Tribunal has not recorded their evidence and has not given opportunity to adduce evidence. The petitioners filed affidavits of neighbours before this Court as per Annexures E1, E2 and E3 to the effect that they appeared before the Land Tribunal to give evidence on behalf of the petitioners, but the Land Tribunal has not recorded their evidence and has not given opportunity to adduce evidence. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned Order rejecting the application filed by the father of the petitioners. Hence the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri T.R. Subbanna, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that this is the third round of litigation filed by the tenant against the rejection of application for occupancy rights. Though this Court, while remanding the matter, set aside the Orders passed by the Land Tribunal dated 05.03.1979 and 29.03.2001 and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration of Form No.7 after giving opportunity to both the parties, the Land Tribunal has not provided opportunity of hearing as directed by this Court. Thereby, the impugned Order of the Land Tribunal is in violation of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court. He further contended that though the adjoining land owners of the petitioners wanted to adduce evidence on behalf of the petitioners, the Land Tribunal did not allow them to adduce their evidence and therefore, the adjoining land owners filed affidavit before this Court as per AnnexuresE1, E2 and E3. Therefore, the impugned Order cannot be sustained. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that by issue of legal notice dated 27.11.2012, landlord admitted the possession of the petitioners and the same has not been considered. Even the RTC entries in respect of the property in question does not reflect the name of the owner. He further contended that during pendency of the matter before the Land Tribunal after remand, an application for spot inspection came to be filed by the petitioners and the same has not been considered. The impugned Order passed by the Land Tribunal is in utter violation of Rule 17(4) and (5) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules,1974(for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). Therefore, sought to allow the writ petition. 9. The impugned Order passed by the Land Tribunal is in utter violation of Rule 17(4) and (5) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules,1974(for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). Therefore, sought to allow the writ petition. 9. Per Contra, Smt. M.C. Nagashree, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the petitioner has filed an application on 13.7.2011 for spot inspection and the same was objected by respondent No.3/legal representatives and hence, the Authorised Officer rejected the application on 1.2.2012. The said order is not at all challenged. She would further contend that inspite of giving sufficient opportunity as per the request made by the petitioners, they have not availed the opportunity nor have put forth their evidence or produced any documents to the prove their tenancy as on 1.3.1974. Therefore, she submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. She would further contend that on the basis of the application filed by the 3rd petitioner on 9.5.2012 seeking 15 days time to produce the documents if any, the Tribunal granted the same, but the petitioners have not produced any documents nor given any statement. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed that the applicants have no interest in the matter and proceeded to pass the impugned order based on the records available. 10. The learned senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that though the matter was being posted on 6.1.2020, it was heard for some time on that, but the learned Counsel for legal representatives of respondent Nos.3(a) to (e) was not present and therefore, the matter was adjourned. Again on 13.1.2020, at the request of the learned Government Advocate to produce the records, the matter was adjourned to 20.1.2020. Again on 20.1.2020 none appeared for respondent Nos.3(a) to (e). Unfortunately, though the matter is of the year 2013, learned Counsel who has filed power for respondent Nos.3(a) to (e) has continuously remained absent. 11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioners that their father late Chikkanarasaiah was cultivating the lands in question and hence had filed Form No.7 which came to be rejected on 5.3.1979 and subsequently, Form No.7A was filed which also was rejected on 29.3.2001. 11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioners that their father late Chikkanarasaiah was cultivating the lands in question and hence had filed Form No.7 which came to be rejected on 5.3.1979 and subsequently, Form No.7A was filed which also was rejected on 29.3.2001. Both the orders were subject matter of W.P.No.9291/2002 before this Court and this Court by the order dated 26.3.2007 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, father of the present petitioners – late Chikkanarasaiah filed an appeal in Writ Appeal No.1278/2007 before the this Court and the Division Bench of this Court after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 6th January 2009 allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 26.3.2007 passed in W.P.No.9291/2002. Consequently the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the authorized Officer dated 5.3.1979 and 29.3.2001 respectively stood quashed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of Form No.7 filed by the tenant with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, to put forth their case and to consider the application in accordance with law expeditiously, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the said order. 12. It is the specific case of the petitioners that after the matter was remanded in pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners filed an application on 13.7.2011 to hold spot inspection as contemplated under the provisions of Rule 17(4) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Though the learned Government Advocate based on the records submitted that the application came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 1.2.2012, the same was objected by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contending that the said application was rejected by the Authorised Officer which is impermissible in view of remand of the matter by the Division Bench of this Court for fresh consideration of Form No.7 filed by the tenants and hence question of rejecting the application would not arise. 13. When the Division Bench of this Court has directed the Tribunal to provide an opportunity to both parties and pass orders, the Tribunal while proceeding with the matter has to follow the procedure as contemplated under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. 13. When the Division Bench of this Court has directed the Tribunal to provide an opportunity to both parties and pass orders, the Tribunal while proceeding with the matter has to follow the procedure as contemplated under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Rule 17(4) of the Rules prescribes that the enquiry of each cases hall be noted by the chairman immediately after hearing or the holding of spot in section by the Tribunal. Rule 17(5) of the Rules stipulates that the opposite party shall be allowed to cross-examine the witness and if it does not wish to so cross-examine, a note shall be made accordingly. A brief summary of the evidence given by each witness shall be recorded by the Chairman. 14. On careful perusal of the impugned order clearly depicts that the Tribunal proceeded to record that the petitioners have not produced any records nor have given any statement in spite of sufficient opportunity provided and they have no interest to proceed with the case, which clearly indicate that the Tribunal has not followed the procedure under Rule 17(5) of the Rules nor has recorded whether sufficient opportunity was provided to cross-examine the opposite parties which does not reflect in the impugned order. Even the same is not supported by the original documents produced before the Court nor is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate. 15. The petitioners while filing the present writ petition have filed an affidavit of adjoining owners Nanjundaswamy, Siddaiah and Shivaraju, who state on oath that though they appeared before the Land Tribunal at Nanjangud Taluk as witnesses for giving evidence on behalf of the petitioner side, the Land Tribunal has not recorded their side of evidence and has not given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. The assertions made by the independent witnesses before this Court are not denied either by the State or by the contesting respondent Nos.3(a) to (e). Therefore, in the absence of any denial, the assertions made in the writ petition have to be accepted. 16. The assertions made by the independent witnesses before this Court are not denied either by the State or by the contesting respondent Nos.3(a) to (e). Therefore, in the absence of any denial, the assertions made in the writ petition have to be accepted. 16. Though the matter being protracted again and again at the instance of either of the parties and original orders have been passed on 5.3.1979 and 29.3.2001, when the Division Bench of this Court while remanding the matter had specifically directed the Tribunal to consider Form No.7 afresh and to follow the procedure as contemplated under Rule 17 of the Rules, the Tribunal has again wrongly passed the impugned order without giving any reasons based on the records. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 17. Though this Court declined to exercise the power of remand, but it is unavoidable because of violation of the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules. Therefore, this Court has no other option except to allow the writ petition and remand the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the matter afresh keeping in view the directions 6th issued by the Division Bench of this Court dated January, 2009 made in W.A.No.1278/2007 and pass orders strictly in accordance with law. It has also been observed that though the Tribunal has afforded an opportunity to the petitioners, they have not availed the same. Therefore, it is for the parties to appear before the Tribunal and adduce evidence, if any, in diligence and prosecute the case. 18. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 19. At this stage, the learned Government Advocate submits on instructions, that the Tribunal has already been constituted. Therefore, the Land Tribunal is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 20. The parties are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal on 17.2.2020 and file objections, if any or affidavit of evidence or cross-examine the witnesses within one month from the date of appearance before the Land Tribunal, failing which they should not claim that they have not been given any opportunity. 21. 20. The parties are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal on 17.2.2020 and file objections, if any or affidavit of evidence or cross-examine the witnesses within one month from the date of appearance before the Land Tribunal, failing which they should not claim that they have not been given any opportunity. 21. Taking into consideration that the matter is being protracted since 1979 at the instance of both parties, the Tribunal shall decide the matter following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 17 of the Rules and pass fresh orders in accordance with law within two months after appearance of the parties.