The petitioner-Govind Krishnarao is knocking the doors of this Court for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, Dharwar dated 26-4-1979 in this writ petition. Sy. No. 54 measures 3 acres 6 guntas. It is situated in Lakamanahalli Village, Dharwar Taluk. The said land was taken by the Court of wards when the petitioner was a minor due to the insanity of the father of the petitioner. The District Judge, Dharwar appointed the Deputy Commissioner as Court of wards. The property was under the management of the Court of wards. Thereafter, the Court discharged the management of wards.

2. The 3rd respondent filed Form 7 seeking occupancy rights. In Form 7, he has shown one Sri Ananth Venkatesh Deshpande, Ganapathrao V. Deshpande and the petitioner as the landlord in respect of Sy. No. 24. Sri Ganapathrao and Ananth Venkatesh Deshpande are the brothers of the petitioner's grandfather Sri Ananth Rao Venkatesh Deshpande had died on 30-4-1958. Sri Ganapath Rao Venkatarao Deshpande died on 13-8-1969. Dead persons are shown as landlords. The petitioner was also impleaded as a party in the said proceedings. According to the petitioner, he was not notified and without notification, an order was passed ordering occupancy rights in favour of the contesting respondent. The petitioner states that he was unaware of the orders The petitioner came to know of this order only when the 3rd respondent objected to the proceedings being continued in respect of the petition lands in terms of the averments made in para 5. The petitioner wants an interference on the facts of this case.

3. Notice was issued. The contesting respondent entered appearance. Records are made available to the Court. Sri Ravi Shankar Shastry, learned Counsel argues that there is violation of rules of natural justice in the case on hand. He points out that no notice was served and even otherwise the proceedings are in violation of well-accepted rules of natural justice. He wants an opportunity.

4. Per contra, Sri Vivek Mehta, learned Counsel says that factually the petitioner did receive notice and that therefore this Court should not interfere in a matter like this. He further argues that the judgment comes in the way of the petitioner's request. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi.

5. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. The petitioner specifically has pleaded that he was served with no notice by the Tribunal. The same was disputed. In the light of the dispute, I sought for the original records and the original records are made available to the Court. From the original records, it is seen that the cover sent to the petitioner returned unserved in terms of the proceedings. Therefore, the contention of service of notice of the petitioner is totally untenable. The petitioner is deprived of an opportunity by the Tribunal in the matter of occupancy rights in the case on hand. I am satisfied that the petitioner is right in his submission with regard to no notice on the facts of this case. I have also gone through the order of the Land Tribunal. It is seen that two dead persons are made parties. Evidence was rendered by the tenant but there was no cross-examination and possibly there could be no cross-examination by a dead person and a person who has not received notice. The order to say the least in the given circumstances certainly requires interference as otherwise injustice would be staring all the time to come. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to set aside the impugned order on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

6. Insofar as delay argument is concerned, I am of the view that when judicial conscience is pricking on account of irregularity and illegality of an order, the Court cannot shut its eyes and reject the petition on the ground of delay only. There is some explanation available with regard to delay. But the said explanation is not to my satisfaction but e