ORDER : (E.S. INDIRESH, J.) In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 06.02.1976 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, conferring occupancy rights in respect of private respondents. 2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, the original petitioners claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.77/1A, measuring 31 guntas, Sy.No.79/1A, measuring 01 acre, 09 guntas and Sy.No.55/1B, measuring 06 guntas situate at Byranahalli village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. It is the case of the petitioners that aforementioned properties are the ancestral properties of the original petitioner. It is stated that, the original propositus-Gavirangaiah, had three sons, namely, Puttarangaiah, Thimmaiah, and Doddaiah. Puttarangaiah had three children namely, Muniyappa, Gangappa and Chikkanna. Thimmaiah had no issues. Sri. Doddaiah had children namely, Gavirangaiah and Kempaiah. Genealogical Tree is produced at Annexure- A. It is further stated that the there was family partition in the joint family of sons of Gavirangaiah and as such, the schedule property had fallen to the share of Thimmaiah, son of Gavirangaiah. Thimmaiah and his wife Muniyamma were cultivating the land for their livelihood. The revenue records are effected in favour of Thimmaiah in respect of subject land as per Annexure- B to D. It is further stated that, Thimmaiah and his wife Muniyamma had executed Release Deed dated 10.08.1943 relinquishing their rights in favour of Puttarangaiah and Sri.Doddaiah. It is stated in the Release Deed that the wife of Thimmaiah-Muniyamma had life interest in respect of the properties in question. However, a rider has been made that, said Smt. Muniyamma has no right to alienate or create third party rights in respect of suit schedule properties. After the death of Thimmaiah, his wife Smt. Muniyamma sold the land in favour of one B.K. Gangabyrappa (husband of respondent No.3). The said sale made in favour of the husband of the respondent No.3, was questioned in OS No.300 of 1957 by the father of the petitioner before the court of the Munsiff Court at Doddaballapura. The said suit came to be decreed on 28.09.1959 declaring that Smt. Muniyamma is having limited interest in respect of subject land and she did not have right to sell the property in question. The said suit came to be decreed on 28.09.1959 declaring that Smt. Muniyamma is having limited interest in respect of subject land and she did not have right to sell the property in question. The judgment and decree in OS No.300 of 1957 is produced at Annexure-E. It is the case of the petitioners that, in view of declaration of law made by the competent Civil court, the respondent have no right, title or interest in respect of subject land and the family of the Puttarainahiah and Doddaiah were absolute owners of the property in question. It is further contended in the writ petition that, despite the husband of the respondent No.3 suffered the decree before the competent Civil court, the revenue entries were illegally made in favour of private respondents. No notice was issued to the father of the petitioners before effecting the revenue records as per Annexure-F. It is also stated that, the original petitioner came to know about the entries and RTC extracts and as such, filed suit in OS No.192 of 2014 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division Nelamangala, seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 5 herein. Petitioner also filed RA No. 169 of 2014 before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura and obtained stay order. However, it is further stated in the writ petition that, Smt. Muniyamma and Gangabyraiah, colluded with each other and filed LRF.No. BYA-7/1975-76 and without the notice of the petitioner, the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal passed an order at Annexure-L, conferring occupancy rights in favour of B. K Gangabyraiah, (husband of the respondent No.3). Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri N.K. Kantharaju, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State; Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the respondent No.3(A); Sri. Sampath Kumar P., learned counsel for the respondent No.3(B- D) and Sri. M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4. Sri. N.K. Kantharaju, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-L, suffers from infirmity as no notice was issued to the petitioners herein. Sampath Kumar P., learned counsel for the respondent No.3(B- D) and Sri. M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4. Sri. N.K. Kantharaju, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-L, suffers from infirmity as no notice was issued to the petitioners herein. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, Smt. Muniyamma, had limited interest in the suit schedule properties having executed the Release Deed dated 10.08.1943 in favour of Puttarangaiah and Doddaiah and said aspect has been concluded by the judgment and decree in OS No.300 of 1957 and therefore, it is contended that, entire proceedings before the Land Tribunal is nonest, which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. 5. Per Contra, Sri. V. B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the respondent No.3A, refers to the order passed by the Land Tribunal produced at Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections, and invited the attention of the court to the Form No.7 filed by B.K Gangabyrappa, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.77/1 A, and 79/1A (Annexure-R2). It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3A that, the land in question was tenanted and the Encumbrance Certificate produced at Annexure-R4 reveals the grant of land is as per order of Land Tribunal.That apart, the subject land was not found place in the partition said to have been executed in the family of the petitioners, on 10.03.1985 (Annexure-R15) and therefore, contended that, impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal requires to be confirmed. 6. Sri. M. Shivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, argued on similar lines and contended that there is delay in filing the writ petition, in challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 06.02.1976 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Sri. K. P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate produced the original records from the Land Tribunal. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the private respondents are claiming right in respect of subject land in terms of the order dated 06.02.1976 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal. On perusal of the original records would indicate that, the husband of the respondent No.3- Gangabyrappa had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of subject land. On perusal of the original records would indicate that, the husband of the respondent No.3- Gangabyrappa had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of subject land. Undisputably, the name of Smt. Muniyamma, was shown as landlord. It is also to be noted that the petitioners herein were not the parties before the Land Tribunal. On examination of the writ papers would indicate that, the said Muniyamma and her husband Thimmaiah, had executed Release Deed dated 10.08.1943 relinquishing their rights in respect of subject land in favour of Puttarangaiah and Doddaiah (ancestors of the petitioners). It is also to be noted that, judgment and decree in OS No.300 of 1957 between Muniyappa son of Puttarangaiah against the Muniyamma would indicate that, the said Smt. Muniyamma had limited interest in the suit land and she has no authority in law to alienate the suit property. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners herein were not parties before the Land Tribunal and entire proceedings before the Land Tribunal was held based on Form No. 7 said to have been filed by one B. K. Gangabyrappa (husband of respondent No.3), wherein, this shown that, Smt. Muniyamma as landlord. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the entire proceedings before the Land Tribunal held in the absence of petitioners herein despite the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil court in OS No. 300 of 1957 is in favour of petitioners. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, it is fit case to remand the matter to the Land Tribunal to consider the issue afresh after providing an opportunity to all the parties concerned. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) Order dated 06.02.1976 in LRF BYA No.7/1975-76 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.2- Land Tribunal is hereby quashed and matter is remitted to Land Tribunal to re-consider the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. iii) All the contentions of the parties are kept open to urge before the Land Tribunal.