ORDER

1. Delay in filing vakalatnama and appearance is condoned.

2. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings initiated under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellants and the respondent made rival claims for registration of occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Act. The Tribunal which enquired into the matter found that on 1-3-1974, when the Act came into force, the appellants were not in possession of the land while Respondent 1 alone being in possession of the land was cultivating the same. In the ultimate decision of the Chairman of the Tribunal, though, was not accepted by a majority, no specific reasoning was given to indicate any contrary finding to the one recorded by the Chairman that the respondent alone was cultivating the land in question. When the matter was carried in writ petition and thereafter in writ appeal the finding recorded is that the first respondent is in possession of the land in question. The Division Bench and the learned Single Judge took different views on the applicability of Section 22 of the Act to the facts of the case. It is not necessary to examine this aspect of the matter at all. The shor