ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ron. In terms of the said order, the petitioners claim is rejected and the land Tribunal has held that 148.35 acres of land is excess under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the petitioners are entitled to hold 108 acres out of total extent of 256.35 acres. 3. The case has a checkered history. Veerangouda Patil was the propositus and he claims to have transferred 26 acres and 30 guntas of land in favour of mother Sangamma. It is stated that father of Veerangouda namely Andangouda died on 21.06.1954 and Sangamma died on 25.06.1965. After the amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,1961 Andangouda declared his holding on 31.12.1974 and on 12.10.1978 the declarant passed away. 4. The land Tribunal after considering the declaration and the holding of the family held that 93 acres and 19 guntas of land is excess. 5. The finding of the Tribunal relating to excess of land was called in question in LR Appeal No.894/1986 and vide order dated 05.12.1997 the appeal is dismissed confirming the finding of the land Tribunal. 6. The LRRP No.2947/1988 is filed, assailing the aforementioned order in LRA No.894/1986 and also the notice dated 04.06.1977. This Court in terms of order dated 03.02.2003 has allowed the revision petition and the matter is remitted to the land Tribunal with a direction to re- examine the old matter after conducting necessary enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1961 and the Rules and to dispose of the same within four months. 7. Pursuant to the remand, the matter was heard. In terms of order at Annexure-C dated 15.10.2003, the Tribunal has concluded that family of applicant had no excess land and disposed of the declaration filed by the land holders. 8. Said order is called in question by the State in W.P. No.17034/2006. The writ petition was allowed and the Court has come to the conclusion that 7 acres of land is in excess of the permissible ceiling limit. This order is questioned by the landlords as well as the State in Writ Appeals No.31119/2012 and 31093/2012. 8. Said order is called in question by the State in W.P. No.17034/2006. The writ petition was allowed and the Court has come to the conclusion that 7 acres of land is in excess of the permissible ceiling limit. This order is questioned by the landlords as well as the State in Writ Appeals No.31119/2012 and 31093/2012. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2013 has allowed the writ appeal filed by the State and has set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The writ appeal filed by the landlords is dismissed. 9. Thus, the matter went for fresh adjudication. In terms of the order dated 05.01.2017, the Tribunal has held that the petitioners are entitled to retain 108 acres of land out of 356.35 acres and held that 148.35 acres is excess. Hence, the petition by landlords. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the land Tribunal is carried away by the observation made by the Division Bench relating to the Will executed in favour of Channamma and has come to the conclusion that the High Court has held that the Will is not established and thereupon has proceeded to hold that the land in question is excess of the permissible ceiling limit. 11. It is urged that the Division Bench has not given any negative finding relating to the Will. The finding relating to the Will has to be given afresh by taking into consideration all the materials on record and that is the import of the order remanding the matter to the Tribunal. Since the Court has remanded the matter to the Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider the case of the petitioners and also the case made out as per the Will said to have been executed in favour of Channamma in the year 1951. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also urge that the order of the Division Bench of this Court has been misinterpreted by the Tribunal to conclude that the claim relating to the Will cannot be adjudicated by the Tribunal. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also urge that the order of the Division Bench of this Court has been misinterpreted by the Tribunal to conclude that the claim relating to the Will cannot be adjudicated by the Tribunal. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 Neeravari Nigam Niyamith would urge that property measuring 15 acres is granted to Neeravari Nigam vide order dated 12.07.1977 in three survey numbers and this order is not specifically questioned by the petitioners in a proceeding where Neeravari Nigam is made a party as such, the grant order in favour of the Niravari Nigam has attained finality and the matter cannot be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in respect to the property for which there is already a grant order. 14. It is also urged that original declarant himself has given a statement that the land which is granted to the respondent No.3 are excess lands in the hands of the declarant, as such, there is no question of fresh consideration of the same by the Tribunal. 15. It is also urged that since 1977 till today the Neeravari Nigam has spent lot of amount and developed the property and third party rights having been created to the advantage of the third respondent, there is no scope for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim for restoration of the land in favour of the petitioners. 16. Learned counsel for other private respondents would urge that in the year 1977, the lands have been granted in favour of the private respondents and all of them were landless persons. They were eligible for grant under the provisions of the Act,1961 and their rights have been crystallized in terms of the grant order and grant order has not being specifically questioned. The petitioners are not entitled to make any claim in respect to the properties granted to the private respondents. 17. They were eligible for grant under the provisions of the Act,1961 and their rights have been crystallized in terms of the grant order and grant order has not being specifically questioned. The petitioners are not entitled to make any claim in respect to the properties granted to the private respondents. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by way of reply would contend that the Niravari Nagama had filed a writ petition in WP No.13196/2006 and in terms of the order dated 14.08.2012, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that respondent No.5 is only entitled to the cost of the land where respondent No.5 has put up the structure and referring to this order it is urged that said order has attained finality and respondent No.5 cannot claim any right over the properties on the basis of the alleged grant. 18. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that some of the private respondents had filed a writ petition No.3947/2006 challenging the order dated 15.10.2003 in which order, the Tribunal has held there is no excess land. The said writ petition was rejected on the premise that the petitioners in those petitions have no locus to question the order of the Tribunal. This order was called in question in Writ Appeal No.1639/2006 and said appeal is also dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge where it has been held that the petitioners in those petitions are not entitled to have a say in the matter. Referring to this order, it is urged that the contesting respondents have no right over the property. Their right will be subject to the decision to be taken by the Tribunal in accordance with law and in case it is found by the Tribunal that the petitioner's family has no excess land, the private respondents will have no right over the property and assuming that they are in possession of the property they are liable to restore the possession in favour of the Petitioners. 19. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 20. It is not in dispute that around 93 acres 7 guntas of land comprising in Survey No.687, 689/1, 689/2, 690, 942, 789, 791, 792 and 780 have been granted in favour of private respondents including respondent No.3. 19. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 20. It is not in dispute that around 93 acres 7 guntas of land comprising in Survey No.687, 689/1, 689/2, 690, 942, 789, 791, 792 and 780 have been granted in favour of private respondents including respondent No.3. There is no challenge to the said grant order where the grantees are made as parties to the proceedings. However, the petitioners contend that the said grant is impliedly cancelled in view of the order passed by the Division Bench where the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration to consider whether the petitioners' family held excess land or not. 21. It is also the contention of the petitioners that some of the grantees have challenged the order of the Tribunal passed in the year 2003 and that challenge has failed. Thus, petitioners contend that there is no grant order or even if it is there, then the same shall be subject to the finding by Tribunal cannot be accepted. 22. It is required to be noticed that the writ petition No.3947 of 2006 is filed by not all the respondents, but only 8 respondents out of the several respondents of this petition. And it is also required to be noticed that in the order dated 18.07.2012, there is no specific reference to the grant orders made in favour of the private respondents in this petition. The Court has proceeded on the assumption that the private respondents are not necessary parties as the dispute between the petitioners/landlords and the government relating to the excess land is not yet adjudicated and there is no final adjudication relating to the alleged excess land. 23. When the Division Bench passed the order of remand in writ petition No.31119/2012 and 31093/2012, the grant which is made in favour of some of the private respondents is not brought to the notice of the Division Bench and when the learned single judge passed the order in writ petition No.17034/2006, the grant order made in favour of the respondents is also not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 24. 24. It is also noticed from the order passed by the Division Bench that the Court has taken note of the fact that 93 acres of land surrendered, 72.08 acres of land were allotted to 15 eligible persons and 21 acres of land was reserved by the State Government and was allotted to the agriculture department, social welfare department and Public Works Department and buildings have been constructed on the said land. 25. Despite the Division Bench noticing this fact, it is required to be noticed that the petitioners have not sought to implead the grantees who are granted the land in the aforementioned lands. Thus, the Court is of the view that the Division Bench has not intended to disturb the grant which is made in favour of the grantees which covered around 93 acres 7 guntas as can be noticed from the impugned order. 26. Now the question is whether the persons who have been granted land somewhere in the year 1977 and 1978 should be made to give up their claim when there is no specific challenge to the grant order by making them as a party. Admittedly, no proceeding is initiated challenging the grant order though the grant is made in the year 1977. The first challenge to the order passed by the land Tribunal was in the year 1986 that is 9 years after the grant in favour of the contesting private respondents. The petitioners having kept quiet for 9 years by not challenging the grant order, now cannot urge to raise a contention that his claim relating to the holding within the permissible limit has to be considered dehors the grant order. The consideration can be only in respect of the lands other than the lands granted to the private respondents. 27. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would urge in terms of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in writ petition No.13196/2006 the Court is of the view that said order gets diluted in view of the order passed by the Division Bench, which has taken note of the grant in favour of the Government Department. Under these circumstances, the petition can be allowed in part. Hence the following: ORDER: (i) Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ron in KLR/DSR-815/2013-14 is set aside in part. Under these circumstances, the petition can be allowed in part. Hence the following: ORDER: (i) Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ron in KLR/DSR-815/2013-14 is set aside in part. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in respect of the lands other than 93 acres 7 guntas of land said to have been granted to the private respondents. (iv) The Tribunal shall consider the petitioners' claim in respect of land other than what is granted to the respondents considering the holdings of the family and also on the claim relating to the alleged Will said to have been executed in favour of Channamma. It is also made clear that since the second wife of Veerangouda is said to have married Veerangouda before the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the claim relating to second marriage has to be considered in accordance with law prevailing at the time of the 2 nd marriage and if it is found that Channamma is the second wife who married Veerangouda before 1955, then Sanna Devamma’s holding should also be taken into consideration.