P. P. BOPANNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have challenged the validity of the order passed by the land Tribunal, Gokak, rejecting their application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of certain lands in Sy. Nos. 120 1a and 198 1a of Hunshyal village. ( 2 ) IN the proceedings before the tribunal, respondent-2 landlord contested the claim of the petitioners, among other things, on two grounds; that he is the owner in possession of the lands having acquired the same under a, family partition deed and that the Tribunal could not grant occupancy rights in resp"ect of these lands because he being a person discharged from the army, his rights had been saved under S. 15 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1961. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal's findings on the above two contentions set up by respondent-2, are wholly vitiated by lack of application of mind to the material on record, as well as to the provisions of S. 15 of the Act. ( 4 ) IN my view, both these contentions are well founded. The case of respondent-2 that he acquired the lands in dispute under a partition deed, ought to be examined by the Tribunal with reference to the partition deed as well as the other relevant evidence. The Tribunal appears to have recorded a finding in favour of respondent-2 on this point basing its conclusion on the application for resumption made by him before the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Act as in existence then. Mr. D. S. Hosmath,, learned counsel for respondent-2, has submitted that respondent-2 had filed the partition deed, but it was not considered and that the Tribunal should give him a fresh opportunity to establish this fact by production of relevant evidence. ( 5 ) THE second contention of Shri c. M. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the righit of respondent-2 to resume the lands after his discharge from the army rested on the service of a valid notice to the petitioners as stipulated under S. 15 (2) of the Act. and it is not the case of respondent-2 that he had issued a notice as contemplated under that sub-section. and it is not the case of respondent-2 that he had issued a notice as contemplated under that sub-section. ( 6 ) THERE is no material on record to establish that respondent-2 did give a notice as required under S. 15 (2) of the Act for resumption of lands from the petitioners. There is also no material to show that respondent-2 did obtain possession of the lands under an order of the competent authority, i. e. , the Tahsildar under the relevant provisions of the Act. In the circumstances the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the lands in question were covered by S. 15 of the Act. It was open to the Tribunal to go into the question of tenancy between the petitioner and respondent-2 and if it had found that proceedings were pending before the Tahsildar, then it should have deferred consideration of the application of the petitioners till such time as the proceedings before the Tahsildar- were completed in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the petitioners' application was entirely without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, this petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed in so far as it relates to Survey Nos. 12011a and 198 1a and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the application afresh in the light of the observations made above. ( 8 ) PARTIES to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .