ORDER : S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J. In this petition, petitioners seeks the following reliefs: "Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) Issue a writ of certiorari, writ or direction by setting aside the impugned judgment dated08.06.2018 passed in Appeal No.796/2007 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-A. b) Issue a writ of certiorari, writ or direction by setting aside the impugned order dated19.07.2006 in case No.LRF/7A-468, 476, 474,465, 464 and 469/1999-2000 on the file of the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B. c) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice." 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2, and learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 9 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents No.3 to 9 filed an application under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, (in short 'KLR' Act), seeking grant of occupancy rights. The petitioners herein were arrayed as the respondents/opposite parties to the said proceedings under Section 77A of the KLR Act and they contested the proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that without conducting a formal enquiry as mandatorily required under Rule 26-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 19.07.2006 conferring/granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.3 to 9 in relation to the subject lands. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner's predecessor in interest filed an appeal in Appeal No.796/2007 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which proceeded to dismiss the appeal, thereby confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and KAT, Bangalore, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which reads as under: 5. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and KAT, Bangalore, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which reads as under: 5. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Assistant Commissioner will indicate that the same is a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without application of mind and without conducting necessary enquiry as required in law and by straight away accepting the claim of the applicants without referring to any documents or material produced by them or considering the same as required in law. So also, the appellate tribunal has summarily dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners by passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, having regard to the impugned orders which suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and in the absence of a speaking order for the purpose of upholding the claim of the applicants and rejecting the defence of the petitioners and without conducting necessary enquiry, without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 9 submit that the impugned order passed by the KAT is of the year 2018 and the present petition filed in the year 2022 - 2023 is barred by latches and delay and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 7. By way of reply learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were unaware of the orders passed by the KAT, Bangalore and came to know about the same only when the revenue records were changed into the names of the respondents No.3 to 9 and as such immediately becoming aware about the same, the petitioners approached this court by way of the present petition. 8. A perusal of the facts and grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition will indicate that, at para 14 of the petition, the petitioners have averred as under. "14. 8. A perusal of the facts and grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition will indicate that, at para 14 of the petition, the petitioners have averred as under. "14. The Petitioners submit that it is their father was looking after the litigation matters and was a party before the KAT in the appeal and during the pendency of the said appeal, he died on 19.03.2018 leaving behind the Petitioners as successors to his estate. The Petitioner No.1 been his wife is an illiterate woman and other children are engaged in their evocation/profession could not concentrate over the litigation matters and they could not notice the disposal of the appeal before the KAT on 08.06.2018 and the same was not within their knowledge for lack of information. Even though they are continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in question along with their father Kariyappa and the same was intended to be disturbed by the Respondents who are the beneficiary of the order at Annexure A and B made forcible attempts to interfere with the possession of the land in question in the month of September 2022 and the Respondents having moved for change for revenue entries in the office of revenue courts contending that, they are granted with the occupancy rights in respect of the land in question and on verification of the records with the possession of their father Kariyappa, they came to know about the pendency of the appeal before the KAT. Therefore on verification of the documents they contacted their lawyers who appeared for their father before the KAT and on verification of the case before the KAT, they came to know that the appeal came to be disposed by confirming the order at Annexure B. The delay caused for filing the writ petition is not due to any negligence or latches nor the same is deliberate or intentional one. The Petitioners being in possession and enjoyment of the land in question as could be seen from the materials produced in the writ petition and are having good case on merits and therefore by condoning the delay if the case is decided on merits, no prejudice will be caused to the Respondents. Therefore the delay caused in filing the writ petition may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and equity." 9. Therefore the delay caused in filing the writ petition may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and equity." 9. In my considered opinion the averments made in para 14 of the memorandum of petition constitutes valid and sufficient grounds to condone the delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court after a lapse of more than four years from the date of the impugned order being passed by the KAT. 10. Under these facts and circumstances obtaining the instant case and the probable/plausible explanation offered by the petitioners, it cannot be said that the petition is barred by delay and latches and this contention urged on behalf of the respondents No.3 to 9 cannot be accepted. 11. In the result, I pass the following ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The order at Annexure-A is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to second respondent. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the second respondent on 12.01.2026, without awaiting further notice from the second respondent. (v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties and conduct enquiry as required in law and proceed further and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (vii) The second respondent Assistant Commissioner is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from 12.01.2026.