CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) ALL these petitions are filed by the declarants who had been issued with notices as at Annexures-B to E under Section 122-A of the Land Reforms Act. The petitioners have challenged the said notices in these writ petitions. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. T. Rayareddy, the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri s. S. Guttal, appearing for respondent 1-State and respondent 2-Land Tribunal. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raya reddy while taking me through backdrop of the case submitted that the impugned notices challenged by the petitioners is on the ground that respondent 2, Tribunal has got no power to review its own order passed earlier under Section 67 of the Land Reforms Act as long as it had not made out a case under Section 122-A of the act The grievance of the petitioners is that in issuing the impugned notices, the Tribunal had not notified therein as to what prompted the Tribunal to cause a issuance of the same, for the raid notices are silent as to what was the reason for doing the same. While taking me through the provision in Section 122-A of the Land Reforms Act, Sri Rayareddy submitted that the Tribunal gets to review the order passed under Section 67 of the Act, if it was satisfied that the earlier order passed by the tribunal were obtained by the petitioner by fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts or by furnishing false incorrect or incomplete declaration. He further submitted that the impugned notices are devoid of those particulars and that the same therefore cannot sustain. Hence, he prayed that the impugned notices be quashed by allowing these writ petitions. In support of that argument, Sri Rayareddy had also cited before me unreported decision in Writ Petition No. 31953 of 1982 and connected with eleven other writ petitions, wherein the Division bench of this Court held that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Competent Authority if that order passed was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete declaration. In the above decision, the Division bench of this Court held as under:"it is clear from a reading of this section, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to review the previous order passed by the Competent Authority if the order passed by the competent Authority had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts or by furnishing false or incorrect or incomplete declaration. It is not in dispute that the authority competent to decide the ceiling limit was the Tahsildar. He by different orders determined the ceiling limits of the petitioners and also pointed out the surplus holdings of the petitioners in certain cases, which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, were also surrendered. But the Land Tribunal, issued notices to the petitioners to reopen the case and review the order passed with regard to the ceiling limit under Section 122-A of the Act. We carefully read the notices issued to the petitioners. The notices did not contain any one of the ingredients which are to be satisfied under Section 122-A of the Act. In the first part of the notices it is stated that the petitioners had not shown certain survey numbers which were not declared in Form 7. The submission is that such survey numbers do not belong to the ownership of the petitioners and the rest of the portion of these notices do not indicate say one of the ingredients required under section 122-A of the Act for reopening the and reviewing the order passed in relation to the fixing of the ceiling limit. Therefore, the notices issued to the petitioners are bad in the eye of law and they are not in conformity with the provisions of Section 122-A of the Act. They are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the notices issued to the petitioner are quashed. The authorities are at liberty to take such action as they deem fit in accordance with law". ( 4 ) SRI Rayareddy also brought to my notice that the allowance of similar writ petitions by the learned Single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 1402 of 1994 connected with three other cases, by following the Division Bench ruling of this Court referred to above. ( 4 ) SRI Rayareddy also brought to my notice that the allowance of similar writ petitions by the learned Single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 1402 of 1994 connected with three other cases, by following the Division Bench ruling of this Court referred to above. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader on the other side vehemently argued that the impugned notices are only the notices notifying the petitioners to appear before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had very well adverted to section under which the same were issued. He further pointed out that the issuance of the said notices by the Tribunal was in pursuance of the detailed order that came to be passed earlier on 25-5-1993 by the tribunal. According to Sri Guttal, there is no necessity for setting out the reason for issuance of the said notices as long as the section under which the notices were issued is very well incorporated therein. Sri Guttal further argued that in obedience of issuing the notices to the petitioners by the Tribunal, it was open to them to plead their case before the Tribunal. Therefore, he prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. ( 6 ) IN the background of the argument and counter argument. advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, I feel it is relevant to advert to section 122-A of the Land Reforms Act. The same reads as hereunder:"122-A. Review by the Tribunal. Where the Tribunal, , either suo motu or otherwise, after such enquiry as it considers necessary is satisfied that an order under sub-section (1) of Section 67 has been obtained by fraud, mis-representation, or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete declaration, it may, within a period of two years from the date of such order or within the 30th day of June, 1984, whichever is later, reopen the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit: provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person likely to be affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard". ( 7 ) FROM the above provision of law, it appears to me that the tribunal does not get jurisdiction to review its order as long as it is not satisfied with an order passed earlier under Section 67 had been obtained by the parties by playing fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of fact as set out above. If one examines the impugned notices with reference to the above provision of law, it is not clear therefrom as to what actuated the respondent 2, Tribunal to issue the impugned notices to the petitioners. It therefore appears to me that the impugned notices under the above provision of law, obviously, is without notifying the petitioner the reasons therefor. Therefore, in my considered view, the grievance of the petitioner before this Court appears to be genuine, for the Tribunal cannot review its own order unless it gets jurisdiction to review its order for the reasons morefully set out in Section 122-A of the Act. As a matter of fact that point is no more contentious since the Division Bench of this Court had settled the law in the above decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) DURING the course of the argument Sri Raya reddy had also submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court he does not press prayer-B in the writ petition with regard to the challenge of the very Section 122 of the Act in the writ petition. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, the impugned notices passed by the Land Tribunal-respondent 2 dated 3-8-1993, issued to the petitioner, copies at Annexures-B to E are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. Nevertheless, it is clarified that the tribunal is at liberty to issue fresh notices to the petitioner in consonance with law and proceed against the petitioners if the same is very much available to it. ( 10 ) THE writ petitions therefore succeed and accordingly allowed. Sri S. S. Guttal, High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks on behalf of the respondent 1-State and the respondent 2-Land Tribunal. --- *** --- .