N. R. KUDOOR, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of the order Ext-A passed by the first respondent - Land Tribunal, mudigere granting injunction against the petitioner and some others in respect of the suit lands. The petitioner claims to be the owner of 5 items of survey Numbers stated in para one of his writ petition. The ground on which the validity of the order Ext-A is attacked by the petitioner is that the order was made without proper and valid notice to him while passing the order Ext-A affecting his right and interest in the lands mentioned in para one of his writ petition of which he claims to be the owner. The records of the Tribunal are before us. Admittedly, no personal notice was served upon the petitioner as required under law both regarding the claim as well as the injunction applications filed by the claimant before the Tribunal A notice dated 21. 7. 1978 issued to the owners of the land including the petitioner herein was received by one A. S. Nagaraj who is the brother of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that 'the said Nagaraj is his divided brother and thajt the petitioner got the suit schedule properties under a partition in the family. However, it is contended by Sri M. S. Balakrishna, the learned Advocate for respondents 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 to 14, who are alone represented in these proceedings, that there was sufficient notice to the petitioner as the notice was received bv his brother Nagaraj i find it difficult to accept this contention. It cannot be said that Nagaraj is a member of the family of the petitioner within the meaning of the, provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, on more than one ground. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is aged 22 years. That being the position, he was a major on 21-7-1978. It is the case of the petitioner thajt he got divided from his joint family under a partition and according to him the said Nagaraj is his divided brother. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is aged 22 years. That being the position, he was a major on 21-7-1978. It is the case of the petitioner thajt he got divided from his joint family under a partition and according to him the said Nagaraj is his divided brother. In that view of the matter, the said Nagaraj had no authority to receive any notice on behalf of the petitioner or represent him before the Tribunal, unless he had obtained authority to act as the agent of the petitioner. It is not the case of anybody before me that nagaraj was constituted as the agent of the petitioner to represent the petitioner before the Tribunal. Hence, I must hold that the order impugned Ext-A was passed without due notice to the petitioner affecting his rights over the properties mentioned in para one of the writ petition in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the rule is made absolute. The impugned order Ext. A so far as it relates to Sy. No. 2711 measuring 4 acres, 7415 - measuring 2 acres, 101 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas, 131 IP measuring 29 guntas and 133 P measuring 3 acres 5 guntas situate in Angadi village, Mudigere Taluk in chickmagalur District is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the application filed by the claimants against these survey numbers after giving opportunity to both the parties of being heard and also to produce the relevant records and evidence. In the circumstances, I direct each parties to bear his own costs. ( 3 ) SEND the records to the Tribunal forthwith. --- *** --- .