guntas of land. Under these circumstances, we are of the view, the learned single Judge was not justified in remitting the matter for fresh consideration. It is necessary to point out that for the second time, the parties were before this court. In the light of the discussion made above, the order dated 25th Sept 2000 made in Writ Petition No. 10134/1993 is liable to be set- aside. However, it is necessary to point out that since it was claimed on behalf of the contesting respondents that they have no other land and if the impugned order is set aside they would be totally landless on the last date of hearing, we had indicated the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as to whether the appellants would be willing to confine their claim only to 12 acres 8 guntas of land as against 17 acres 8 guntas and give up their claim for 5 acres of land out of the said 17 acres 8 guntas in respect of which occupancy right was granted to them by the Tribunal. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, after taking instructions from the 2nd appellant Sri Shekarappa, who is present before the Court, submitted that he has been instructed by both the appellants to confine their claim only to 12 acres 8 guntas of land as against 17 acres 8
