The main legal point established was that the grant of occupancy under the Land Reforms Act enured for the benefit of the entire family, as indicated by the use of 'kutumba' in the application, and not just the individual applicant.

( 1 ) THE petitioners have questioned the order of the Land Reforms Appellate authority, Udupi (Dakshina Kannada), passed in L. R. A. No. 1270 of 1988, dated 2/3-1-1989, modifying the order of the Land Tribunal to grant occupancy right only in respect of respondent 1-Kuddu madivala.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are as follows: the respondent 1-Kuddu Madivala filed Form 7 on 30-12-1974, claiming occupancy in respect of 16 cents of land in Survey No. 82/5 of shivalli Village and also in respect of other extent of land, which is not the subject-matter in this revision. On filing of the Form 7, public notices were issued. The owners namely, Sulochana Bhat and Ramakrishna acharya were notified. The Land Tribunal recorded the evidence of the applicant Shri Kuddu Madivala. After considering the relevant records the Land Tribunal, Udupi, by its order dated 19-8-1981 granted occupancy in favour of the family to the extent of 16 cents in Survey No. 82/5. It appears after the occupancy was granted, the petitioner-Babu madivala and others filed O. S. No. 90 of 1986 before the Civil Judge court, Udupi, for partition as the occupancy right was granted in favour of the 'family'. It is also alleged that the petitioners made efforts to include their names in the revenue records. Therefore, Kuddu Madivala filed the Writ Petition No. 382 of 1986, before this Court questioning the order of the Land Tribunal insofar as it relates to grant of the occupancy right in favour of the 'family'. On establishment of the Appellate Authority, the proceedings in W. P. No. 382 of 1986 was transferred to the appellate Authority and numbered as L. R. A. No. 1280 of 1988. The appellate Authority by its order dated 2/3-1-1989 modified the order of the Land Tribunal to the extent that the occupancy should be granted only in favour of the applicant Kuddu Madivala. The petitioners being aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Authority ordering to grant occupancy right only in the name of Kuddu Madivala, approached this hon'ble Court in this L. R. R. P. No. 1861 of 1989, questioning the order of the Appellate Authority. This Court by an order dated 29-8-1996 dismissed the revision with the observation that "the petitioners have not filed any application as contemplated in law nor they have made any statement before the Tribunal regarding their interest in the property consequent to issue of public notice, they have absolutely no locus standi to question the order of the Appellate Authority in this revision under section 121-A of the Land Reforms Act".

( 3 ) ON the dismissal of L. R. R. P. No. 1861 of 1989 by this Court, the petitioners filed civil appeal before the Apex Court in number 2956 of 1997. The Apex Court allowed the civil appeal with the following observations:"in these proceedings we are not concerned with the merits of the appellant's claim but with the question whether the order of the land Tribunal made for the benefit of the entire family of the respondent 1 could be modified by the Appellate Authority to the prejudice of the claims of the other members of the family, who are prejudiced by the order made by the Appellate Authority without notice to them. The Appellate Authority's order suffers from this infirmity which alone was sufficient to set aside the order in the revision filed before the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High court for a fresh decision in accordance with the above. No costs". On remand, now the matter stands posted for disposal on merits.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel Shri G. Balakrishna Shastry vehemently contended that it is clear from the records that it is Shri Babu Madivala who was the original tenant. Merely because of the reason that Form 7 was filed only by Kuddu Madivala does not mean that he alone is entitled for occupancy rights. The application filed by the elder member of the family enures to the benefit o