ORDER :

1. This is a petition filed by the tenant challenging the rejection of his Form No.7.

2. One Mallappa Bheemappa Talageri, who is also known as Malleshappa Talageri claiming to be the tenant of Block No.39, filed a Form No.7. In the said Form No.7, he stated that the landlords were Rudrawwa W/o Bheemappa Talageri and Shivawwa W/o Shivappa Tontagere, were the land owners. In the Form No.7, he had stated that the above mentioned landlords were the owners of only 1/3rd of the property and he was consequently a tenant only in respect of 1/3rd portion on 10.05.1977.

3. On the same day, he also filed another Form No.7 seeking for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.37/3, measuring 7 acres 28 guntas. In this Form No.7, he stated that Basavaraj Shivappa Tontagere was the landlord.

4. The Land Tribunal in the first instance conferred occupancy rights. The said order was however set aside, by an order of this Court in W.P.Nos.1375455/1977, and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal.

5. The Land Tribunal once again granted occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. This was challenged by the landlord in W.P.Nos.643435/1979. This writ petition was also allowed and the matter was once again remanded to the Land Tribunal.

6. On remand, the Land Tribunal proceeded to reject the Form No.7. This was challenged in an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. In this appeal, an application was filed by the respondents requesting the Appellate Authority to permit him to crossexamine the appellant. The application was allowed and the matter was set down for the cross-examination of the appellant. Since the appellant was not present, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

7. The appellant immediately filed a petition seeking for restoration. However, before his petition could be considered, the Appellate Authority itself stood abolished and he thus filed an application before this Court requesting this Court to treat his petition as a Writ Petition as provided in Act 17/1990.

8. This Court treated the miscellaneous as a writ petition in W.P.Nos.512324/1993. However, this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that an application under the Act 17/1990 was not maintainable, since the appeal had been dismissed and the application under the Act 17/1990 could be made only in respect of a pending appeal. Liberty was however granted to the appellant to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority, by which the appeal had been dismissed for default.

9. The appellant however did not prefer a writ petition challenging the order of the Appellate Authority by which his Appeal had been dismissed for default.

10. The appellant, on the other hand, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, dated 26.09.1984, which had been impugned by him in the appeal before the Appellate Authority.

11. Thus, technically, by virtue of dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the order dismissing the appeal for default in this writ petition, the rejection of his Form No.7 by the Land Tribunal has become actually attained finality.

12. However, since the petitioner has challenged the order of the Land Tribunal dated 26.09.1984 and this petition has been pending for last past 15 years before this Court, rather than taking a technical view of the matter, this petition is taken up for consideration on merits also.

13. Smt. Sona Vakkund, learned counsel for the petitioners in her elaborate submissions did not dispute the following facts:

14. That the 1/3rd of the land bearing Sy.No.37/3 and the entire land bearing Sy.No.39 belonged to one Balappa Fakirappa Paloti and this Balappa Fakirappa Paloti had only two daughters namely Rudrawwa and Shivawwa.

15. Rudrawwa is none other than the mother of Malleshappa Talageri, the petitioner herein who had filed two Form No.7’s. Shivawwa is none other than the aunt of the petitioner, Mal