( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 31479 of 2004 is filed by Venkappa Hunasikatti challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 15-6-2004 at annexure-C in the case on hand. Writ Petition Nos. 33646 to 33648 of 2004 are filed by Suresh Ambiger and two others challenging this very order. Both the petitions are taken up together for disposal.

( 2 ) FACTS in W. P. No. 31479 of 2004: Petitioner's father Somappa hunasikatti filed Form 7 before the Land Tribunal, Bilagi in respect of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 of Kolur village in Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District. The Tribunal by its order dated 6-9-1975 allowed the application and granted occupancy rights in favour of Somappa. Necessary entries have been carried out in the revenue register in respect of the lands. As per conditions of grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands, lands could not be sold to any one within a period of 15 years from the date of conferment of occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. It is stated that after the period of non-alienation i. e. , after a lapse of 23 years from the date of grant, the lands have been sold in favour of three persons and they are in possession as on today. Name of the petitioner's father was entered in respect of the said lands. The third respondent claims to be the son of govindappa Hunasikatti who is the brother of the petitioner's father. In 1995 he applied to the Village Accountant seeking to modify the mutation entry and to enter his name along with the names of legal representatives of the deceased Govindappa. The Village Accountant colluded with him in the matter. Appeal was filed by the petitioner's father and the Assistant Commissioner set aside the order. Third respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 13992 of 1996 challenging the order dated 6-9-1975. This Court accepted the writ petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. After remand the Tribunal took up the matter on its file. Notice was issued to the petitioner's father to appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded that the said notice has been refused to be received and therefore the Tribunal proceeded to pass an order in favour of the third respondent without considering the factual aspects of the matter. According to the petitioner, petitioner's father died in February 2003. In the circumstances, he says that the entire order requires reconsideration.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS entered appearance and a detailed statement of objections is filed by the third respondent. In the objections it is stated that the father of the petitioner filed Form 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question. It is not filed in his individual capacity. It was filed as Karta of the family. Respondent 3 is the grandson of Venkappa Hunasikatti who had two sons, namely govindappa and Somappa. Petitioner is the son of Somappa and respondent 3 is the son of Govindappa. After the death of their grandfather in 1973, the name of the father of the petitioner and respondent 3 came to be mutated in the revenue entries. Respondent 3 was minor at that time. Even though occupancy rights were granted in the name of the father of the petitioner, it was enured to the benefit of respondent 3. Respondent 3 states that filing of the writ petition was very well-within the knowledge of the petitioner as well as his father, and that his father was represented by an Advocate in the earlier proceedings. This Court fixed the date for appearance of the parties and the parties appeared before the Tribunal. There was no sitting of the tribunal. Later individual notices were issued by the Tribunal and the same was refused by the petitioner as well as by his mother. A panchanama and the report made by the Village would reflect the proceedings of the Land Tribunal. It is also stated that during the trial of the case, father of the petitioner died. An application was also filed by respondent 3 reporting the death of the petitioner's father and p