L. Narayana Swamy, J: The petitioner challenges the common order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore in LRF No. 3589/75-76 and 4060/76. The' petitioner and the third respondent are the rival daimants in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.39/2 of Vittasandra Village, Bagur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The third respondent is represented by his LRs. The Land Tribunal by the order dated 31.3.1997 rejected the case of the petitioner and occupancy right has been conferred on respondent No.3.

2. The third respondent filed application for conferment of occupancy right in Form No.7 on 29.1.1976 in respect of Sy.No.39/2 which was registered as LRP No.3589/75-76. The petitioner also made application on 17.6.1976, which was registered in LRF N 0.4060/76. On an earlier occasion, the Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3 and the same was challenged before this Court in W P No. 10715/76 which came to be disposed of on 25/7/1983. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal considering both the cases jointly. Thereafter the present order has been passed by the Land Tribunal, which is impugned herein.

3. The petitioner submits that he was the tenant in respect of the land in question, he was paying 'vara' to Sri Venkatagiriyappa during his life-time and thereafter to his son Sri V. Krishnarnurthy. He has been issued receipts for having accepted the 'vara'. The RTC was also standing in the name off other of the petitioner and the same has been produced at Annexure-A. The name off other of the petitioner has been shown in column No.12(2) since 1968-69 till 1980-81. Copy of the Form No.7 has been produced at Annexure-B and the order passed by the Land Tribunal in favour of the third respondent has been produced at Annexure-D.

4. After the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, the Land Tribunal has conferred occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner submits that the High Court directed the Land Tribunal to pass fresh order after affording full opportunity but the impugned order has been passed straight in contravention of the directions of this Court. The Tribunal while disposing of the matter has relied upon the evidence recorded prior to July, 1983. One Sri Lakshminarasimhaiah who claimed himself as the owner of the land in question had made a statement on 10.6.1976 that is, prior to the order passed in the writ petition and his statement has been considered by the Land Tribunal. It is submitted that petitioner was denied opportunity to cross-examine the witness Lakshminarasimhaiah since as on that day, the petitioner was not a party in the proceedings. He further submitted that at least either, Lakshminarasimhaiah or his L.Rs. could have been called for examination. The Tribunal further considered the spot inspection said to have been conducted by the Revenue Inspector which was also not made available to the petitioner. The evidence of Muniyappa Bin late Bangi Muniyappa, Muniswamy Bin late Poojary Patalappa who have made statement on 1/3/ 1974 have been considered by the Land Tribunal. The petitioner submits that his father was the tenant and he was paying 'vara' to the landowner V. Krishnamurthy and his mother Smt. Subbamma and obtained receipt for having accepted the 'vara'. Sri Lakshminarasimhaiah was not the landowner and the true owner was V. Krishna Murthy and hence there is a confusion between Lakshminarasimhaiah and Krishnamurthy in respect of ownership of the land in question. Hence it is the contention of the petitioner that there is denial of opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice and mandatory provisions of Section 48-A and Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Rules.

5. The third respondent has filed statement of objections. He has denied the claim made by the petitioner. He has submitted that the owne