The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of the finding given by the Civil Court at an undisputed period of time on the Land Tribunal, influencing its jurisdiction and decision. Additionally, the interpretation of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954, Section 8, was crucial in determining the occupancy rights and jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the validity and correctness of the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24195/2003(LR), whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to be allowed by setting aside the order challenged in the Writ Petition and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration keeping in view the observations made by the learned Single Judge during the course of the order passed in Writ Petition.

2. The facts in brief which gave rise to this appeal are as follows:

Sy.No.2 measuring 4 acres 33 guntas of Lakkenahalli village in Nelamangala Taluk is a 'Jodidar Inam Land'. The forefathers of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were cultivating the said survey number by paying 'Vara' to 'Jodidars'. After the Land Reforms Act came into force, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy right in respect of aforesaid survey number cultivated by them. The Land Tribunal upon enquiry granted occupancy right in respect of Sy. No.2 in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 by order dated 09.11.1981. According to the appellants, it was a Talwari Service Inam Land granted as Inam to Ganga Narasaiah the father of the appellants in view of the service rendered by him as Talwar. Inam granted to Talwar are excluded from the purview of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954. As such, Ganga Narasaiah was registered as the holder of minor Inam under Section 8 of the Act by an endorsement No.89/31 dated 10.03.1964 by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore. Though, Ganga Narasaiah was registered as the holder of minor Inam in respect of Sy.No.2, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. So, Ganga Narasaiah preferred Writ Petition No.4733/1982, which came to be dismissed. Against the order of dismissal of Writ Petition, he preferred Writ Appeal No.826/1987, wherein the Land Tribunal was directed to treat the legal representatives of Ganga Narasaiah as parties to Form No.7 filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 legal representatives of Kempaiah by order dated 01.03.1990. According to the appellants, the land in question is a Talwar Inam Land and they being Talwars have been cultivating the land and it was granted to them by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams. Thus, the appellants claim that the land in question is a Talwar Inam Land, whereas the respondents claim that it is a Jodidar Inam Land. In other words, there is a rival claim in respect of the aforesaid survey number by the appellants on the one hand and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand. After remand of the matter in Writ Appeal, the Land Tribunal held a fresh enquiry and came to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy right on the ground that it is a Talwar Inam Land and the application for re-grant is pending and that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant the occupancy right in respect of the said survey number which made the Land Tribunal to reject the application filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy right by order dated 07.01.2003. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application by order 07.01.2003, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred Writ Petition No.24195/2003 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and upon consideration of the material placed on record, set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration keeping in view the observation made during the course of the judgment by order 24.07.2012.

3. Questioning the validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal is preferred by the appellants on the ground that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal and contrary to law. The observa