Rathnakala, J.

1. These appeals are by the aggrieved petitioner of W.P. Nos. 16503 and 17067 to 17069 of 2004, wherein, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7-12-2011 disposed of the said writ petitions on certain terms. To align the events in chronological order:

The appellant's father namely Kunhimonu alias Iddina Beary was a protected tenant under respondents 3 and 4 in respect of lands located in Upinangadi Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. He filed Form 7 seeking confirmation of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, Puttur Taluk, as follows:

Under respondent 3 the lands in Survey No. 42/3 to an extent of 2 acres 50 cents, in Survey No. 43/5 to an extent of 3 acres 63 cents, in Survey No. 42/4 to an extent of 10 cents; under respondent 4 in respect of lands in Survey No. 41/2 to an extent of 1 acre 58 cents, in Survey No. 41/1B to an extent of 0.51 cents, in Survey No. 42/2 to an extent of 1 acre 90 cents, respectively. His application was numbered as LRYT No. 3334/74-75. Respondents 5 to 7 also filed similar applications in respect of some of the above lands, the application of respondent 5 was registered in LRYT No. 917/75-76 and that of respondent 6 is numbered as LRYT No. 3897/74-75. The Land Tribunal conducted separate enquiry in respect of these applications vide order dated 3-12-1976, Kunhimonu was granted occupancy rights in respect of 4 items of lands only by rejecting his prayer in respect of other lands.

Respondent 5 was granted occupancy rights in respect of the lands claimed by Kunhimonu, respondent 6 was granted 36 cents of land in Survey No. 41/1B, respondent 7 was conferred occupancy rights in respect of 10 cents in Survey No. 42/4, vide order dated 4-11-1976. The appellant's father challenged the order of the Land Tribunal in rejecting his claim in respect of 4 items in Writ Petition No. 12171 of 1977. He died during the pendency of the said writ petition. The appellant and his two brothers/ respondents 8 and 9 were brought on record. The writ petition was allowed by quashing the order passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of the lands in Survey Nos. 42/3, 43/5, 42/4, 41/1B and 42/2 with a direction to the Land Tribunal to club all the four applications filed by the appellant's father and respondents 5, 6 and 7 and to hold common enquiry. On remand, the Land Tribunal confirmed its earlier order. The order was challenged in W.P. No. 29969 of 1994. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 23-1-2002, the order of the Land Tribunal was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal after issuing notice to the concerned parties and to give opportunity to lead evidence. The Land Tribunal, on 29-3-2003 passed the order holding that the land in Survey No. 42/2 measuring 1 acre 90 cents is uncultivated for last 40 to 50 years and rejected the claim. The appellant filed Writ Petition Nos. 16503 of 2004 and 17067 to 17069 of 2004. After giving audience to both the parties, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions on following terms:

"(i) The petitioner is entitled for occupancy rights to an extent of 5 acres 33 cents.

(ii) Respondent 5 is entitled for occupancy rights to an extent of 2 acres 60 cents.

(iii) Respondent 6 is entitled for occupancy rights to an extent of 36 cents.

(iv) Respondent 7 is entitled for occupancy rights to an extent of 10 cents.

(v) Insofar as Sy. No. 42/2 is concerned, the claim stand rejected.

(vi) In Sy. No. 42/3, an extent of 2 acres 21 guntas is granted, notwithstanding the fact that the claim is 5 acres 56 cents.

(vii) The Land Tribunal shall carve out the extent of land which has been granted to the petitioner, respondents 5, 6 and 7."

2. Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge without authority exercised the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') and had partly allowed the petitions and rejecte