JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court affirming the order passed by a learned Single Judge is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

Factual aspects need to be noted in some detail.

3. The Land Tribunal, Mangalore, Taluk Mangalore (in short the Tribunal ) by order dated 19.10.1978 accepted the prayer of one Cyril Lasrado (applicant before it) wherein he had prayed for recording his name as occupant of the concerned land. The applicant was the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants. By the said order, the Tribunal directed registration of Cyril Lasrado as the occupant of the land, mentioned in the order in terms of Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the `Act ). Since certain reliefs which were prayed for had not been granted, Cyril Lasrado filed a Writ Petition No. 29259 of 1992 before the Karnataka High Court. Respondent who was the General Power of Attorney holder and the respondent No.2 filed an application to be impleaded in the writ petition which was rejected. Suit bearing No. OS. 499 of 1994 was filed by the appellants alleging encroachment by the respondents. The suit was decreed on 30.11.1995. The power of attorney holder and one of the respondents were the parties of the aforesaid suit. Cyril Lasrado died in the meantime. A writ petition was filed by the present respondents questioning correctness of the Tribunal s order dated 19.10.1978. The same was filed against Cyril Lasrado though he had died long before. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge by a very strange order. Though the State of Karnataka and its officials brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that Cyril Lasrado had expired, the learned Judge was of the view that there was no necessity to bring his legal representatives on record. This was so felt as the learned Judge was of the view that the matter was to be remitted to the Tribunal and no prejudice would be caused to the legal representatives. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the appellants before the Division Bench by filing a Writ Appeal which by the impugned judgment was dismissed. The Division Bench only noted the arguments of the parties and observed as follows:

"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Govt. Advocate and perused the materials placed on record.

On consideration, we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge so as to call for any interference. However, the Tribunal shall hear the aggrieved parties after giving them opportunity and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly."

4. It has to be noted that the present appellants brought to the notice of the Division Bench that there had been delay of 138 days in filing the Writ Appeal as they were not aware of filing the writ petition and its disposal and when they came to know about it they applied for certified copy and after obtaining the same, filed the writ appeal. On merits also it was submitted that after a long lapse of about 19 years the writ petition had been filed against a dead person and even without issuance of notice the writ petition was disposed of.

5. The stand of the respondents was that the delay was not properly explained in any event, there was no prejudice caused by non-issuance of notice. In essence order of learned Single Judge was supported.

6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this case shows non application of mind by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. Without even issuing notice to the legal representatives the matter was disposed of on a clearly erroneous ground that no prejudice would be caused if the matter is remanded back, over looking to the fact that the writ petition was filed after about 19 years witho