(1.) The appellants who are the original writ petitioners have impugned the judgment and order dated 21st September 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition filed by them. By filing a writ petition on 18th March 2009 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the appellants challenged the order dated 2nd December 1997 passed by the second respondent - the Karnataka Land Tribunal. The said order was passed in favour of the third respondent. By the said order of 2nd December 1997, the occupancy rights in respect of the subject property were granted to the third respondent. The learned Single Judge after finding that there is no explanation for long delay from 2nd December 1997 till 18th March 2009, proceeded to reject the writ petition on the ground of a long and unexplained delay.
(2.) According to the case of the appellants, one H.T.Madappa was the owner of the subject land, who had two sons, who were the original writ petitioners. The second petitioner's legal representative was brought on record who is the second appellant. As per the record of the Land Tribunal, the first appellant appeared before the Land Tribunal and gave the statement contesting the claim made by the third respondent. According to the record of the Tribunal, the third respondent filed written submissions and the appellants had taken time to file written arguments. The Tribunal adjourned the matter on six occasions to enable the appellants/writ petitioners to file the written arguments. Ultimately, the case was adjourned to 26th November 1997 and was posted for orders on 2nd December 1997.
(3.) It appears from paragraph 7 of the impugned order that before the learned Single Judge, a contention was raised that the first appellant never appeared before the second respondent -Tribunal and a stranger impersonated him. His second contention was that the original second writ petitioner, who is the brother of the first appellant was not intimated about the proceedings.