( 1 ) IN the above writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hukkeri, granting occupancy rights in survey Nos. 141/4b and 142 of Ingli village, in favour of the 2nd Respt. It is not disputed that the lands in question were of the ownership of one Anand son of the petitioner herein. It is admitted that there was a registered partition in the year 1966 and these two lands fell to the share of Anand. Admittedly Anand is a minor. ( 2 ) THE contention of Mr. A. V. Albal, learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the 2nd Respt has failed to implead Anand, who is the owner of these lands and who is a necessary and proper party to the proceeding. the 2nd Respt in his application filed in Form No. 7 has impleaded the present petitioner as the owner of the land, which is incorrect. Under sub-sec (2) of Sec. 48a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to be hereinafter called the 'act'), the Land Tribunal is required to cause a public notice published and it was also required to issue individual notices to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others as may appear to it to be interested in the land. Anand is a person who is interested in the land as these two lands fell to his share in a partition between the present petitioner and his son Anand. ( 3 ) THE 2nd Respt himself brought to the notice of the Tribunal by filing an application that Anand alias Harigovind Kulkarni is a owner of the land and he is the minor son of the present petitioner and that he had interest in the lands in question as contemplated under S. 48a (2) of the act, and therefore requested the Land Tribunal to add Anand as 2nd respt represented by his natural father the present petitioner. The Land tribunal inspite of such a request being made on behalf of the 2nd Respt has failed to implead Anand as a respondent and also has failed to issue notice to him as required under S. 48a (2) of the Act. It is a very serious error of law apparent on the face of the record. ( 4 ) MR. It is a very serious error of law apparent on the face of the record. ( 4 ) MR. Albal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the minor was a necessary party for more than one reason. He submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in respect of these lands has affected the right of the minor Anand. Secondly, he contended that when the question of payment of compensation arises the present petitioner who is not the owner is not entitled to receive the compensation. Therefore, he urged that the impleading of Anand was necessary and the Tribunal has failed to implead him. On the other hand Mr. G. D. Shirgurkar, learned Advocate for the 2nd Respt contended that it is a very technical objection raised and the petitioner has to be blamed for not impleading Anand as a party in this proceeding. The reason given by Mr. Shirgurkar, is that s. 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 contemplates that whoever acquires any right in any land he is required to report to the authorities and get the entries made in the revenue records and, therefore, he urged that no title at all passed to the minor and that the title continued with the father. It is very difficult to accept this contention. Under the proviso to S. 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, if rights of the parties are affected by means of a registered deed, such a party is exempted from making a report to the authority about the acquisition of rights. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, it was the duty of the authority to report the matter to the department for making entry in the record of rights and index of lands. It is too much to contend that in the absence of any entry in the record of rights that title did not pass to Anand. The registered partition deed convey title to him and, therefore, he was the owner of the land and he was interested in the lands in question and he was required to be impleaded as a party. The Tribunal has failed to discharge the legal duty cast upon it. It is also contended on behalf of the 2nd Respt that practically the present petitioner represented the minor Anand and conducted the case on behalf of the minor. The Tribunal has failed to discharge the legal duty cast upon it. It is also contended on behalf of the 2nd Respt that practically the present petitioner represented the minor Anand and conducted the case on behalf of the minor. The proceedings disclose that nowhere the name of Anand is found as a party and also there is no order passed by the land Tribunal, showing the petitioner as the guardian of minor Anand. The proceedings disclose that the proceedings went on before the Land tribunal, between the petitioner as the owner and the 2nd respondent as a tenant. ( 6 ) MR. G. D. Shirgurkar pointed out that the Land Tribunal has observed in the course of its order that the petitioner appeared on behalf of his son, who is the owner of the suit land as per the partition deed, and therefore, the requirements of S. 48a (2) of the Act, have been complied with. It is not possible to accept this contention. A mere observation in the course of the order does not satisfy the requirements of law, especially when a notice was required to be given under the law, the party should be properly impleaded and proper notices should be served in the manner required by law. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from serious illegality which has resulted in substantial failure of justice. The impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law for impleading the minor Anand and also for serving a notice on him as required by law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The proceeding is remanded to the Land Tribunal, Hukkeri, for disposal in accordance with law after impleading Anand the son of the petitioner as a party represented by a guardian and after serving a notice upon him as required by law. The tribunal is also directed to afford him opportunity to produce evidence in support of his case and also of being heard. ( 7 ) AS regards the interim order passed by this Court, it may be stated that it survived during the pendency of this writ petition. The parties are at liberty to approach the Land Tribunal for any interim relief or for further orders. Writ petition allowed. No costs. Two weeks to file memo of appearance is granted to the Govt Reader. The parties are at liberty to approach the Land Tribunal for any interim relief or for further orders. Writ petition allowed. No costs. Two weeks to file memo of appearance is granted to the Govt Reader. --- *** --- .