( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to the effect that this court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 24-8-1984 in writ petition No. 4490 of 1984 by this Hon'ble court vide Annexure-B to the writ petition and to pass suitable orders.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the land involved is measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of land of sy. No. 53/a and sy. No. 53/aa measuring 3 acres 29 guntas, situate in village ben-chincholi, tq. Humnabad, district bidar. These lands originally are alleged to have belonged to one bandappa who was alleged to be the exclusive owner in possession of the property. The parties to the case are related as under. The following tree will indicate the relationship of the parties and is material for the purpose of the case. bandappa s/o mariappa sambanna laxmappa kallappa chandrappa ismail

( 3 ) WRIT petition No. 4490 of 1984 had been filed by Annappa s/o bhimrao, challenging the order of the tahsildar, humnabad, dated 1-3-1984, in case No. Hbd/kdr-cr-8/83-84 whereby the tahsildar had ordered the revenue inspector to deliver the possession of land sy nos. 53/a and 53/aa, to Sri ismail s/o kallappa and brothers. The tahsildar had taken the view that the land in dispute had been mortgaged to bhimrao s/o sangappa and annappa s/o bhimrao and the deed in question was not the sale deed and in that view of the matter he held that the said deeds dated 23-5-1973 and 17-11-1967 were null and void and then he directed the revenue inspector to hand over the possession of land to ismail s/o kallappa and chandrappa s/o sambanna, potraj and other brothers. It is this order of tahsildar that had been challenged by annappa in writ petition No. 4490 of 1984. The petitioner in writ petition No. 4490 of 1984 did not implead chandrappa s/o sambanna and his brothers. Only ismailappa had been impleaded as respondent 3.

( 4 ) THIS court (hon'ble Sri Rama Jois, J.) Allowed the petition after having taken the view that in view of Section 39 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, no person could be dispossessed from a land unless reasonable notice to vacate the land is given. he further observed, "taking of possession from one and handing over it to another in this manner that is without notice is patently illegal, that petitioner must be deemed to be in possession of the land. However, the possession was purported to have been taken and handed over to respondent 2, a direction had to be issued to the tahsildar-directing respondents 1 and 2 to re-deliver the said land" and then the court ordered allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned notice of tahsildar and taluka executive magistrate-annexure-e to the writ petition and further directed the tahsildar, humnabad taluka to re-deliver possession of the two lands to annappa, the petitioner in writ petition No. 4490 of 1984, who is respondent 3 in the present petition.

( 5 ) CHANDRAPPA s/o sambanna, filed this present petition under article 226 of the Constitution and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and exchanged. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel for respondent 3, that the petition under article 226 is not maintainable as the order challenged in this writ petition, has been passed by this court (hon'ble Mr. Justice rama jois), under writ jurisdiction itself. another preliminary objection has been taken on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner on merits has submitted that the petitioner had not been made a party, though he was a necessary party and when the order of this court was obtained he had no information. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted and replied that when the cause for filing the petition arose, the petitioner did immediately file it and the cause arose when respondent 3 tried to interfere with the present petitioner's possession over the land in dispute and when the present petitioner and his cous