H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the tribunal is liable to be quashed for the legal infirmities which according to the petitioner's counsel vitiate the entire order. ( 2 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by learned counsel that a copy of the preliminary report of the tahsildar was not furnished to the petitioner at the time of enquiry. It is pointed out that admittedly even according to the order passed by the tribunal, no measurement or survey of the land in question was carried out, leading to classification of lands and though a partition had taken place in 1967 and though it was sanctified specifically by means of a registered deed on 1-3-1974, the tribunal was not justified in disbelieving the partition or rejecting the partition. It is further contended that the tribunal has totally ignored the partition which took place prior to 1-3-1974 and thereby the rights of the minors to whom substantial shares of the property enured have suffered erosion. ( 3 ) IN any enquiry that is to be held before passing a considered order on the question whether a declarant is holding land in excess of the ceiling area, the act contemplates that there shall be a fair and proper enquiry in the sense that adequate and reasonable opportunity should be afforded to the declarant to meet the points raised in the preliminary report of the tahsildar and also to enable the declarant to file his objections to the said report before the tribunal. Unless a copy of the preliminary report is made available to the declarant, it cannot be said that the declarant has been treated fairly and that the enquiry is proper. There is no material on record to show that copy of the preliminary report was furnished to the petitioner in this case. ( 4 ) FROM a reading of the order of the tribunal it is seen that there was no survey of the lands in the village, including the lands of the petitioner and yet a measurement has been described besides classification of the land based on the report of the tahsildar. ( 4 ) FROM a reading of the order of the tribunal it is seen that there was no survey of the lands in the village, including the lands of the petitioner and yet a measurement has been described besides classification of the land based on the report of the tahsildar. It is beyond one's own comprehension as to how the specula tory method could be a proper substitute to the known methods of arriving at the holding of the declarant and also for the purpose of classification of the land. Certainly the tribunal was on slippery ground in such a speculative investigation and it is difficult to reconcile such an order with the requirements of law. It is further contended that 32 items of land which do not belong to the declarant have been brought within the sweep of the order and that an extent of 63 acres and 6 guntas of land is in excess of the ceiling area. ( 5 ) THE most questionable finding of the tribunal is in respect of the plea of partition raised by the declarants. According to the declarants, partition took place in 1967 among the members of the family consisting of minor children, apart from the adults and the partition was reduced into a registered deed on 28-12-1974. The finding of the tribunal is that since the partition deed was registered subsequent to 1-3-1974, the fact of partition cannot be taken notice of by the tribunal. This is an assumption which does not bear legal scrutiny and a proposition which is too dubious to be accepted. It may be necessary for me to observe that under hindu law the child in the mother's womb (en venire sa mere) is entitled to a share in the ancestral property. Leave alone the minor children, in this case we are concerned with the children who were minors at the time of partition. Minority does not extinguish the rights of the children. But, on the other hand, the view that is consistently taken by this court is that the minors are entitled to hold property on partition and to the extent of their share under the act. It has to be presumed that they have independent rights aside from the rights of the father or karta of the joint family or the manager of the joint family. It has to be presumed that they have independent rights aside from the rights of the father or karta of the joint family or the manager of the joint family. In abdul khadar v land tribunal, ILR 1986 (2) Karnataka 1446, the view taken by a division bench of this court is to be seen in para 23 of the judgment:"in revanna 's case while construing the relevant Provisions of the kamataka act and in particular Section 63 thereof which provides for fixation of the ceiling area, a learned single judge of this court has held that "land transferred on partition is not included in the deemed transfer of land laid down in explanation to Section 63 (10)" and has further held that "the authority should calculate the ceiling area of the land, after taking into consideration the partition and the extent of land that fell to the sharers. " The learned judge also observed that where there was a partition between a hindu father and his minor son, that share of the minor son should not be treated as land held by the family. Undoubtedly, the partition referred to by the learned single judge was the partition that had taken place prior to 1-3-1974, the date on which the kamataka Amendment Act came into force and not partition that had taken place subsequently. We are, therefore, not inclined to hold that the view taken in revanna's case is not correct. Regard being had to the express Provisions in our Act, the decision therein appears to be correct. "it is thus seen that the tribunal was in gross error in ignoring the partition which had taken place prior to 1-3-1974. The registration of the document is not a factor to be taken into consideration, but the fact of partition which was anterior to 1-3-1974. ( 6 ) IT was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the property in question is ancestral in character and secondly the entire family holding is held by five coparceners. These are aspects which are material for consideration of the tribunal before determining the question of holding of land in excess of the ceiling area, if any. ( 7 ) IN the above circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order of the land tribunal for the order bristles with incongruities and material errors. These are aspects which are material for consideration of the tribunal before determining the question of holding of land in excess of the ceiling area, if any. ( 7 ) IN the above circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order of the land tribunal for the order bristles with incongruities and material errors. ( 8 ) I, therefore, allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order under Annexure-E. The land tribunal is at liberty to hold a fresh enquiry affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the coparceners who are holding the land in accordance with the declarations made with leave to adduce such evidence as they deem fit and dispose of the case on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. ( 9 ) SRI patel d. Karegowda, learned high court government pleader is permittedto file memo of appearance within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .