ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioners being aggrieved by the orders dated 16-9-1981, 6-10-1997 and 14-11-2002 in the proceedings bearing No. Dhamni/SR/186 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Belgaum, vide Annexures-F, E and A respectively, so far it relates to Sy. No. 205/4 measuring 0.12 guntas situated at Dhamne Village, Belgaum Taluk and District, further for a direction to the Land Tribunal to allow the application dated 10-10-2002 filed by the petitioners for impleading themselves in the proceedings, which is pending adjudication before the first respondent, have presented the instant writ petition.
2. The only grievance made out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri V.R. Prasanna, is that, when the matter is pending before the first respondent the petitioners have filed an application on 10-10-2002 for impleading themselves as parties to the proceedings contending that, they are the absolute owners of Sy. No. 205/4 of Dhamne Village measuring 0.12 guntas and they are necessary parties to the proceedings. The said application filed by the petitioners had come up for consideration before the first respondent-Land Tribunal on 14-11-2002. After hearing both the parties, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected on that day. Further, the case of the petitioners is that, they were not aware of the order passed by the Land Tribunal earlier on 6-10-1997, neither their father nor themselves were parties to the said proceedings, no notice was issued to them. Therefore, it is stated that, their lands have been wrongly included by the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 6-10-1997 registering occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 205/4 measuring 0.12 guntas in favour of respondents 2 to 4. Hence, they were constrained to redress their grievance as referred above and felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition for the reliefs stated supra.
3. The only submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is one, without jurisdiction and same is not sustainable in law as it is passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioners or to their Counsel. He took me through the order sheet maintained by Land Tribunal, wherein the application filed by the petitioners on 10-10-2002 has not been recorded. Matter was adjourned to 20-11-2002. But, the Land Tribunal has passed the impugned order on 14-11-2002 rejecting their application. There is no entry in the order sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal in this regard. Therefore, the impugned order passed on their application is liable to be set aside at the threshold. Further, it is vehemently submitted that, the orders passed on 16-9-1981 and 6-10-1997 by the Land Tribunal are behind the back of the petitioners. They have not been notified nor they have received any notice from the Land Tribunal on both occasions, when both proceedings were initiated and decided. Further, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that, petitioners' father died as early as on 24-6-1953. The order passed by the Land Tribunal in the years 1981 and 1997 are against the dead person. Hence, those orders are nullity in the eye of law and cannot be sustained. At no point of time respondents 2 to 4 were cultivating the land in question as tenants. The Land Tribunal has wrongly registered the occupancy rights in favour of the respondents. Therefore, according to him, the impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal are liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents, inter alia, contends that, the petition is liable to be dismissed as misconceived on the ground that, the impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal is in accordance with law, and it has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that, in pursuance of the direction issued on 27-11-2000 in W.P. No. 30908 of 1997, the subject-matter is only in respect of Sy. Nos. 205/1 and 205/5. The question of entertaining the petitioners' application for impleading in respect of Sy. No. 205/4 does not arise and rightly it has been rejected and interference by this Court is not justifiable. Further, learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 was quick to point out that, in fact father of the petitioners was a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal when the occupancy rights have been granted in favour of respondents 2 to 4 by the order dated 16-9-1981. The cause title of the said order and proceedings state that, the petitioners' father was a party to the proceedings and also notice to that effect has been issued to the father of the petitioners and he has not chosen to redress his grievance by assailing the said order and hence, it has become final and the orders passed by the Land Tribunal in the years 1981 and 1997 were assailed by the landowner Sri Rudrappa only in W.P. No. 25027 of 1981 in respect of Sy. No. 205/5, which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Thereafter, Land Tribunal took up the matter for consideration and passed the order dated 6-10-1997 rejecting the application filed by the respondents for registration of occupancy rights. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by the Land Tribunal respondents 2 to 4 have filed W.P. No. 30908 of 1997. Neither the father of the petitioners nor the petitioners were parties to the said proceedings. Said writ petition was allowed and remanded for fresh consideration only in respect of two survey numbers referred above. When the matter was pending adjudication of the claim of the respondents 2 to 4 for registration of occupancy rights, petitioners have filed the said application for impleading, which has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal and therefore, the learned Counsel submits that, the instant petition does not survive for consideration.
5. After careful evaluation of the entire original records including the impugned orders dated 16-9-1981, 6-10-1997 and 14-11-2002, it emerges on the face of the said records that, petitioners' father was a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal when the matter has been taken up for consideration of registration of occupancy rights in the year 1981, and it has followed the procedures envisaged under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Rule 17 of the Kamataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. The Land Tribunal has issued notice and the same was published in the locality and also affixed at the Chawadi of the village. Further, it emerges from the original records for the years 1964-65 to 1973-74 that, the name of father of the respondents 2 to 4-Mulimani Ningaiah is recorded in Column 12(2) of the record of rights and mode of cultivation is shown as '4', which shows that, he was cultivating the said land as a tenant in respect of the land in question. The said order passed by the Land Tribunal has not been assailed by the petitioners when their father was a party to the proceedings. They have realised these facts only in the year 2002. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 16-9-1981 has become final and interference at this distance of time is liable to be rejected at the threshold on the ground of delay and latches. It is the duty cast on the petitioners to be vigilant and cautious to find out that, whether their names have been entered in the relevant record of rights, but they have not chosen to do so, nor produced any iota of document nor it is available in the entire records after microscopic evaluation that, the land in question has been found in the name of deceased father of the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal cannot be interfered at this stage.
6. So far as assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 6-10-1997 is concerned, the said order is passed by the Land Tribunal in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court so far it relates to Survey Nos. 205/5 and 205/1. There is no direction issued by this Court for reconsideration in respect of Survey No. 205/4 as contended by the petitioners. After careful evaluation of the material available on record, it is found that, the petitioners themselves have produced the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 30908 of 1997 filed by respondents 2 to 4, which is only in respect of Survey Nos. 205/5 and 205/1 and the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 16-9-1981 has been set aside so far it relates to Survey Nos. 205/5 and 205/1 of Dhamane Village and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration of the case of respondents 2 to 4 in accordance with law and after affording opportunity to the petitioners. When the matter was not pending adjudication in respect of Survey No. 205/4, question of impleading the petitioners in the said proceedings does not arise nor they have made out any case in respect of these two survey numbers because their claim is only in respect of Survey No. 205/4. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners. Therefore, interference by this Court is not justifiable and I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition at this stage. Therefore, writ petition is liable to be rejected as misconceived.
7. The specific contention raised by the petitioners' Counsel at this stage is that, petitioners have filed an application through their Counsel for impleading them as parties to the proceedings, but the first respondent-Land Tribunal took up the said application for consideration behind their back and the impugned order has been passed on 14-11-2002, rejecting the said application. The said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be even looked into sympathetically on the ground that, as the said application is misconceived in nature because it has been submitted through their Counsel to implead them claiming that they are the owners of land in Sy. No. 205/4 of Dhamane Village to an extent of 4 guntas, which was not the subject-matter of the proceedings in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, the Tribunal has took up the application for consideration and rejected the same. Just not finding the entry in the order sheet does not create any right to the petitioners. When they have failed to question the correctness of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the years 1981 and 1997, those orders have attained finality and realising this at the later stage, that too after more than three decades and not disclosing true facts before this Court is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court and deliberately the petitioners have not stated the true facts in their application as to why they want to implead as parties to the proceedings, which is not pending before the Tribunal for consideration.
8. Taking into consideration all these facts the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed as misconceived.
In the result, the instant writ petition stands dismissed as misconceived.
Ordered accordingly.