ORDER

Heard Sri D.S. Hosamath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGA., for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

"a) a writ of certiorari quashing order vide Annexure- B passed by the Karnataka Appellate Authority, Bengaluru in Appeal No.735/2017 dated 31.01.2020.

b) any other writ or order appropriate in the circumstance of the case and c) award costs in the interests of justice and equity."

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he is tenant in possession of the land bearing Sy. No.5/B measuring 16 guntas in Ankanahalli Village, Mandya Taluk belonging to one Smt.Madamma. That the said land is a Toti Inam land and the Petitioner belongs to Toti community. That the Petitioner being poor and illiterate did not file Form No.7 but subsequently filed Form 7(A) under Section 77(A) of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 for grant of land before respondent No.2 making said owner Smt.Madamma as a party. The said Smt.Madamma died and paper publication was published calling for notifying/objections by legal representatives and Respondent No.3 filed application to be brought on record being the grand daughter. Respondent No.2 by order dated 18.06.2012 granted occupancy rights in favour of Petitioner. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.4 challenged the said order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Appeal No.735/2017.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that although he was served with notice, he was not informed of the further date of hearing and the appeal was taken up before the Mysuru camp and the Petitioner, being illiterate could not understand the same. That subsequently, he came to know that vide order dated 31.1.2020, the appeal was partly allowed and was remanded to Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed.

5. Sri D.S. Hosamath, learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the order passed by the Tribunal was passed without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner. He further contended that Respondent No.4 was not a party before the respondent No.2 and has no right to file the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 justifying the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the matter has been remanded and hence, said order is not liable to be interfered with by filing Writ Petition.

7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The question that arise for consideration is 'whether the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with in the present Writ Petition?'.

8. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 31.1.2020 the proceedings in Appeal No.735/2017 has been remanded by the Tribunal to Respondent No.2 for consideration, having regard to the fact that the order of the Tribunal does not in any manner adjudicate the rights of the parties, in the considered opinion of the Court no interference is warranted in the order of the Tribunal. However, it is made clear that all the contentions of the parties are kept open and proceedings shall be conducted by Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law.

Writ Petition stands disposed of.