JUDGMENT : T.M.NADAF, J. This intra-court appeal filed under Section-4 of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961, by the appellants/respondent Nos.4, 6(b) to (d) calling in question the order dated 04.04.2022, passed by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23035/2011, whereby the writ petition filed questioning the order dated 31.03.1999, passed by the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru south Taluk in LRF(B)DS:241:79-80 and LRF(B)DS:430:76-77, so far as it relates to the lands which are claimed by the petitioners therein allowed remanding the matter for a denovo enquiry. 2. The parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge for easy reference. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is as under: As per the petitioners/respondent nos.1 to 9 herein: the petitioners/respondent nos.1 to 9 are the tenants in cultivation of the land measuring 2 acres in Survey No.45 of Dommasandra village, Bidarahalli Hobli (now Bengaluru South taluk). They have filed Form No.VII for grant of occupation rights in respect of the land stated supra. The same came to be registered as (B) DS 415/1979- 1980, before the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru South Taluk (‘Land Tribunal’ for short). 4. It is germane to mention that there are several applications filed seeking occupancy rights in respect of the Survey Nos.45, 46 and 47 of Dommasandra village. At an earlier point of time, the Land Tribunal clubbing all the applications by a common order dated 26.09.1979, granted 30 guntas of land each in favour of all the applicants in respect of the survey numbers supra. The respondent No.4, deceased Abbaiah, deceased Shamaiah and Chinnanna father of respondent Nos.6(b) to (d) filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.20085-88/1979 before this Court, which came to be allowed on 09.04.1984, quashing the order of the Land Tribunal dated 26.09.1979 remanding the matter for a denovo enquiry in strict compliance with Rule-17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules , 1974 (‘Rules 1974’ for short). 5. The petitioners were not issued with notice after remand; the Land Tribunal proceeded to pass an order dated 31.03.1999, in LRF(B)DS:241:79-80, LRF(B)DS:1007:76-77, LRF(B)DS:1006:76- 77 and LRF(B)DS:430:76-77, vide Annexure-F to the writ petition, granting 3 acres of land each in survey No.45 in favour of respondent No.4, deceased Abbaiah and Chinnanna and 19 guntas each in favour of respondent Nos.7 and 8 out of 9 acres, 38 guntas. The claim of the petitioners is only to an extent of 2 acres. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that they have been made as respondents in the case filed by other claimants and not served with the notice. As such not aware of the order dated 31.03.1999 passed by the Land tribunal. That apart, there is no specific finding in the order that the persons in whose favour lands granted were in occupation and cultivation of the land as tenants as on 01.03.1974, as contemplated under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act , 1961 (‘KLR Act’ for short). It is their further case that their claim of 2 acres forms part of lands allotted to respondents nos.4, 6, 7 and 8. 6. The petitioner claims to have been in possession of the land concerned and they were unaware of the order passed by the Land Tribunal and in view of changes of entries made in the mutation register pursuant to the order, the contesting respondents tried to disturb their possession. It was at that point of time they have noticed the order of the Tribunal. Immediately thereafter, they filed the petition calling in question the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 31.03.1999, claiming that the order was passed in their absence and sought a remand to the Land Tribunal by affording proper opportunity in terms of law as contemplated under Rule-17 of Rules 1974. 7. As per respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.6(b) to (d): Respondent Nos.4 and 6(b) to (d) claims that the petitioners have been served with the necessary notice, however, they have not contested the case. The writ petition is filed belatedly i.e., after 12 years from the date of the order and there is no proper explanation offered by the petitioners for the delay and sought to dismiss the petition on the ground of delay and latches, justifying and supporting the order passed by the Land Tribunal. 8. The writ petition is filed belatedly i.e., after 12 years from the date of the order and there is no proper explanation offered by the petitioners for the delay and sought to dismiss the petition on the ground of delay and latches, justifying and supporting the order passed by the Land Tribunal. 8. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions of the petitioners, as well as the private respondents Nos.4, 6 (b) to (d), allowed the writ petition, setting-aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 31.03.1999, in so far as it relates to the lands which are claimed by the petitioners and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, with a direction to hear all the parties concerned and pass orders in accordance with law, directing the parties to appear before the Land Tribunal on 20.04.2022, without any further notice. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question in the present writ appeal. 9. Heard Sri.T.N.Viswanatha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Rajashekara Reddy B.R., learned counsel for respondent nos.1, 3 to 5, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent No.10 and 12. 10. Sri.Vishwanatha reiterating the grounds taken before the learned Single Judge submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 12 years in filing the writ petition. The petitioners have not properly explained the delay as required under law. He further submitted that the petitioners were served but not contested. To substantiate his submission regarding service of notice on the petitioners, he referred to Annexures-R23 to R25 i.e., alleged notices alleged to have been served on the petitioners and Annexure-R26, is a copy of the Vakalat-Nama alleged to have been given by the deceased Narayan Reddy and another, filed in LRF(B) (DS)Nos.65,66,69/1979. 11. Sri.Vishwanatha, produced a copy of the order dated 29.01.2007, in W.P. No.35409/2000 (LR) along with a memo dated 05.06.2005 and submitted that the appellants herein called in question the grant of 19 guntas of land each to respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the said writ petition (Respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the writ petition No.23035/2011). 11. Sri.Vishwanatha, produced a copy of the order dated 29.01.2007, in W.P. No.35409/2000 (LR) along with a memo dated 05.06.2005 and submitted that the appellants herein called in question the grant of 19 guntas of land each to respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the said writ petition (Respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the writ petition No.23035/2011). The learned Single Judge of this Court, allowed the writ petition (W.P.No 35409/2000) setting-aside the order of the Land Tribunal dated 31.03.1999, so far as it relates to grant made in favour of respondent nos.3 and 4 therein, to an extent of 19 guntas each with an observation that the grant made in favour of the appellants herein remains undisturbed. In view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.35409/2000(LR) there is nothing remains to consider the case of the petitioners in the writ petition under challenge. Alternatively, he submits that in the event the appeal is not entertained, he seeks for an observation that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.35409/2000, be retained and the rights may not be disturbed. 12. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel Sri.Rajashekara Reddy, vehemently submitted that there was no notice issued by the Land Tribunal, subsequent to the remand order passed in W.P.No.20085-88/1979 by this Court, setting-aside the earlier order of the Land Tribunal. The petitioners are shown as opponents in the case of the other applicants. In the absence of notice, they were not aware of the proceedings. He also submitted that there was no specific order by the Land Tribunal to show that the appellants were in occupation and cultivation of the land as tenants as on 01.03.1974. So far as the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.35409/2000 is concerned he has submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein were not made as parties to the petition as such, the same is not binding on them. 13. Smt. Savitha Kulkarni referring to paragraph No.5 of the order impugned submitted that though the notice shown to have been served on the petitioners, however there is no proof of receipt of notices by them. 13. Smt. Savitha Kulkarni referring to paragraph No.5 of the order impugned submitted that though the notice shown to have been served on the petitioners, however there is no proof of receipt of notices by them. She further submitted that there is no finding forthcoming in the impugned order as to who was in actual cultivation of the land as on 01.03.1974, however, she also submits that the mutation entries are changed in favour of the grantees pursuant to the order passed by the Land Tribunal in the year 2000. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire writ appeal papers, the only question that arises for our consideration is: “Whether the appellants have made out a case, which calls for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, at the hands of this Court?” 15. Our answer to the above question is in ‘negative’ for the following reasons: It is an undisputed fact that the appellants and the contesting respondents are the rival claimants claiming occupancy rights to the extent stated in Form No.VII, in survey No.45 of Dommasandra village, Bidarahalli Hobli (now Bengaluru South taluk). It is also not dispute that at an earlier point of time way back in the year 1979, there was a common order passed by the Land Tribunal granting 30 guntas each in favour of all the claimants who have filed Form No.VII in respect of survey Nos.45, 46 and 47 of Dommasandra village. It is also not in dispute that appellant no.1, deceased Abbaiah and deceased Shamaiah and Chinnanna father of appellant Nos.2 to 4 challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before this Court in W.P.Nos.20085-20089/1979, which came to be allowed on 09.04.1984, remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal of the applications submitted by the petitioners herein and others and to hear all the parties including the contesting respondents herein. 16. It is germane to mention here that though the appellants filed the statement of objections with loads of annexures, in the writ petition however, they have not produced copy of the order in W.P.No.35409/2000 (LR) before the learned Single Judge. 16. It is germane to mention here that though the appellants filed the statement of objections with loads of annexures, in the writ petition however, they have not produced copy of the order in W.P.No.35409/2000 (LR) before the learned Single Judge. The appellants claims that the notices were served on the petitioners, however, the submissions of the learned Government Advocate recorded by the learned Single Judge at para No.5, clearly shows that although the notices have been despatched to the petitioners there is no proof of receipt of notices by them. The Land Tribunal order is silent as to who was in occupation and cultivation of the land as on 01.04.1974. So far as the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.35409/2000, it is apparent on the face of the record that the contesting respondents herein/the petitioners were not parties to the said petition. 17. The claim of the contesting private respondents is only to the extent of 2 acres in survey No.45, which as observed by the learned Single Judge, forms part of the lands that have been allotted to the appellants herein and respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge at para Nos.5 and 6 has stated reasons for setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, so far as the claim of the petitioners/contesting private respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein, which reads as under: “5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 and 11 submits that although notices have been served to the petitioners herein there is no proof of receipt of notices by them. He also admits that no finding has been given in the impugned order as to who was in cultivation of the land as on 01.03.1974. However, he submits that mutation entries pursuant to the impugned order have been changed in favour of grantees way back in the year 2000. (Emphasis supplied) 6. Admittedly, at the first instance, the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners. The same was set aside in a writ petition filed by the contesting respondents as they were not heard in the matter. Thereafter, it is noticed that the Land Tribunal has not considered the case of the petitioners at all. The petitioners have filed (B) DS 415/1979-80 to assert their claim. The same has not been heard. The same was set aside in a writ petition filed by the contesting respondents as they were not heard in the matter. Thereafter, it is noticed that the Land Tribunal has not considered the case of the petitioners at all. The petitioners have filed (B) DS 415/1979-80 to assert their claim. The same has not been heard. Instead the case of the contesting respondents have been taken up and the entire 9 acres 38 guntas available in Survey No.45 has been granted amongst them. It is not clear from the records as to whether the petitioners have been served or not. Further, there is no specific finding given by the Tribunal as to who was in cultivation of the land as on 01.03.1974. Under the circumstances, in the interest of Justice, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for considering the matter afresh after hearing all the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders.” 18. We find no infirmities in the order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal to the extent of the land claimed by the petitioners/contesting respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein and remanding the matter with a direction to hear all the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As such, this writ appeal sans merit and accordingly, we pass the following order: i) The writ appeal calling in question the order dated 04.04.2022, passed in Writ Petition No.23035/2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, stands Dismissed. ii) No order as to cost