ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge herein is to an order dated 28.02.2019, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, declining the condonation of delay of 1784 days. Consequently, the application to recall the order dated 16.01.2014, whereby Writ Appeal Nos.3643-44/2012 were dismissed in default has also been turned down. 3. The controversy revolves around the validity of sale deeds executed by C.K. Naik, the original grantor, to whom the subject land was allotted free of cost, as he was a member of the Scheduled Caste Banjara Community. Similarly, the subsequent sale deeds, executed by his legal heirs, and then repeated sales by their vendees, all are subject matter of dispute. The Statutory Authorities, by invoking powers under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘PTCL Act’), have annulled all those sale deeds and directed that the land be restored in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. 4. The appellants are subsequent vendees of a part of the land in dispute and the sale deeds in their favour too have been annulled. They approached the authorities but their appeals were rejected. Thereafter, they filed a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 13.03.2012. They then filed an intra-court appeal(s), which was hopelessly time barred. Be that as it may, those appeals were dismissed in default on 16.01.2014. The appellants woke up after 1784 days and moved the subject application for recalling of that order and restoring the appeal(s). The Division Bench of the High Court, as noticed at the outset, has dismissed that application giving rise to these proceedings. 5. No one is present on behalf of the appellants. However, having regard to the fact that they have enjoyed the interim protection, granted by this Court way back on 04.10.2019, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter any further. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the contesting respondents and carefully perused the material placed on record. 7. 5. No one is present on behalf of the appellants. However, having regard to the fact that they have enjoyed the interim protection, granted by this Court way back on 04.10.2019, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter any further. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the contesting respondents and carefully perused the material placed on record. 7. Having gone through the grounds pleaded by the appellants in support of their prayer for condonation of delay and keeping in view the multiple rounds of litigation between the parties, it appears to us, in the interest of justice, that such like title dispute ought to be finally settled through an order on merits, instead of winding up the proceedings on a technical ground like inordinate delay etc. It seems to us that the respondents could be adequately compensated in terms of cost, for the hardships likely to be caused to them on revival of the appellate proceedings, which were dismissed for default in the year 2014. As a cumulative effect of these factors, however, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are inclined to allow the instant appeals, subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the appellants. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order of the High Court dated 28.02.2019 is set aside; the order dated 16.01.2014, whereby the intra-court appeals were dismissed in default, is also recalled and W.A.Nos.3643-3644/2012 are restored to their original numbers and file. 8. The appellants shall pay the cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the respondents on the first day of appearance before the High Court or on any such date that may be fixed by the High Court. In case, they fail to pay the cost, their instant appeals shall be deemed to have been dismissed calling no further action. 9. In the event the appellants pay the cost to the respondents and the appeals are restored, we request the High Court to decide the appeals on merits expeditiously, as the parties have engaged in litigation for more than three decades. 10. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. 11. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.