ORDER 1. W.P.No.2640/2013 is filed against the Order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the Land Tribunal, Sagar, rejecting the application filed by the landlord, petitioner herein, for abetment of proceedings against respondent No.6 and W.P.No.4722/2013 is filed against the the Order dated 17.01.2013 passed by the said Land Tribunal allowing the application to come on record, filed by the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.6Babu Poojari. 2. Sri H.Mahabalappa, petitioner/party in person filed these writ petitions contending that he is the owner of the properties in question and he had filed W.P.Nos. 3111331115/2011 seeking to set aside the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal which came to be disposed off by the Order dated 07.09.2011 remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh enquiry. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the petitioner herein filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3, 4 and Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for abatement, contending that respondent No.6 Babu Poojari made in appearance on 02.08.2006 for re-enquiry which was opposed by the present petitioner and subsequently, said Babu Poojary, he died on 04.07.2011 and the death certificate was produced. The Land Tribunal has no power to implead the legal representatives of a deceased person. He contended that the Land Tribunal functions on par with the Civil Court and it is the duty of the Advocate to report the death of his client and the petitioner would have been notified to that effect by the Land Tribunal. The order passed against a dead person by the Land Tribunal does not bear legal force and is liable to be dismissed accordingly. 4. The Land Tribunal, considering the material on record, by the Order dated 06.09.2012, dismissed the application for abatement of proceedings against respondent No.6, holding that, ‘the very Land Reforms Act is enacted to give tenancy rights when tenancy is established and it may not serve the ends of justice if on technical grounds the application is rejected. The Act has also got social face to it’. The Tribunal also considered the rural aspect of the respondents. Accordingly, permitted the parties to continue with the proceedings. Hence, the landlord filed W.P.No. 2640/2013. Subsequently, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.6 filed application to come on record to contest the matter, which came to be allowed by the Order dated 17.01.2013. The Tribunal also considered the rural aspect of the respondents. Accordingly, permitted the parties to continue with the proceedings. Hence, the landlord filed W.P.No. 2640/2013. Subsequently, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.6 filed application to come on record to contest the matter, which came to be allowed by the Order dated 17.01.2013. Against the said Order, W.P.No.4722/ 2013 has been filed by the landlord. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Sri Anil, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Land Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the application filed by the landlord seeking abatement of the proceedings against the respondent No.6. He further contended that, when the application is filed by the legal representatives subsequent to abatement of application, the land tribunal erred in allowing the application on 17.01.2013, though there was delay in filing the said application. The said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Land Tribunal. Therefore, he contended that the Order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for abatement and the Order dated 17.01.2013 allowing the application filed by the legal representatives of the respondent No.6 to come on record, are erroneous and contrary to the material on record and liable to be quashed. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions. 7. Per contra, Sri H.Jayakara Shetty, learned counsel for the legal representatives of respondent No.6 and Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate, sought to justify the impugned Order and contended that the parties to the proceedings are from rural background and not aware of the procedure and therefore, there was some delay in filing the application. Therefore, the Land Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for abatement and allowing the application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.6 to come on record. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 8. Therefore, the Land Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for abatement and allowing the application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.6 to come on record. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner in both the writ petitions claims to be the landlord in respect of the property in question and it is also not in dispute that earlier W.P.Nos.3111315/2011 were filed against the Order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal on I.A.No.4/2010 and this court, disposed off the writ petitions directing the Land Tribunal to expedite the main matter itself, within a period of six months. 9. It is also not in dispute that during pendency of 6th the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the respondent died on 04.07.2011. The applicants ought to have filed an application to come on record within the time stipulated. But the application seems to have been filed on 01.03.2012. In the meanwhile, the present petitioner filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3, 4 and Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure for abatement of the proceedings. The Land Tribunal, considering the application, by the impugned Order dated 06.09.2012, rejected the application for abatement of proceedings against deceased respondent No.6 filed by the landlord on the ground that the Land Tribunal cannot decide the matter on technicality and subsequently, the application filed by the legal representatives of respondent No.6, to come on record, came to be allowed by the Order dated 17.01.2013. The application filed by the petitioner vide AnnexureC1 in W.P.No.4722/2013 clearly depicts that Mahabalappa is shown as applicant in case No.KLR/APR/NVL/10/74 75. If the petitioner’s application was allowed, the proceedings would have been abated in respect of respondent No.6. The Land Tribunal, considering the entire material on record, rightly observed that the Land Reforms Act is a beneficiary legislation and application cannot be rejected on technicality. Accordingly, the impugned orders came to be passed. 10. In fact, if any proceeding is abated, it affects the parties. Therefore, the Land Tribunal, considering the material on record, rejected the application for abatement filed by the petitioner and allowed the application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.6 to come on record. Accordingly, the impugned orders came to be passed. 10. In fact, if any proceeding is abated, it affects the parties. Therefore, the Land Tribunal, considering the material on record, rejected the application for abatement filed by the petitioner and allowed the application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.6 to come on record. Mere allowing the application, though there is some delay, is not a ground to abate the proceedings. 11. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done on technicality. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 12. Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind, the Land Tribunal is justified in rejecting the application for abatement filed by the petitioner and allowing the application filed by the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.6. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned Orders passed by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed off. 13. However, the Land Tribunal has to proceed to decide the application pending before it, as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions stated supra, in accordance with law. The Land Tribunal shall consider the claim petition after giving opportunity to both the parties and pass orders, independently, and strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced either by rejection or allowing of the applications and shall proceed with the merits in accordance with law.