ORDER Patil, J.--The petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 28.3.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal in so far as it relates to grant of occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of land in Sy. No. 17/108 measuring 0.85 acres of Kallamudkur village of Karkala Taluk O.K. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, his father has purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed dated 15.9.1961 from its original vendor. In pursuance of the said sale deed, his father's name was entered in the RTC for the agricultural years 1968-69 to 1979-80. Be that as it may. The 3rd respondent - late Smt. Loku Hengsu had filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question on 9.8.1974 and the same was registered. The Land Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering both oral and documentary evidence has granted occupancy rights in respect of the land in question along with other several items in favour of the 3rd respondent-Loku Hengsu by its order dated 28.3.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, in so far as it relates to Sy.No. 17/108 measuring 0.85 acres, the petitioner has presented this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for R1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for LRs of R3. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal suffers from illegality. The Tribunal has not issued any notice to the petitioner nor impleaded him as party to the said proceedings and behind the back of the petitioner, the occupancy right was granted in favour of 3rd respondent. If the opportunity was given to the petitioner, he might have brought to the notice of the Land Tribunal that there is no application in Form No. 7 as such was filed by Late Smt. Loku Hengsu for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. If the opportunity was given to the petitioner, he might have brought to the notice of the Land Tribunal that there is no application in Form No. 7 as such was filed by Late Smt. Loku Hengsu for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. He vehemently submitted that the name of the petitioner's father was entered in pursuance of the sale deed and that material was very much available before the Tribunal, but the Land Tribunal has not issued any notice or conducted any enquiry as required under the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and Rules, in so far as the land in question is concerned. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Tribunal has passed the order, when there is no claim as such, was made by the 3rd respondent, He submitted that the order is not a speaking order, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for LRs of 3rd, respondent, inter alia, contended and justified the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. He submitted that Form No. 7 was filed in respect of Sy No. 17 with some other sub-division along with other 5 to 6 items. The land Tribunal, after taking into consideration the survey report submitted by the Surveyor and the ground reality of the land in question found that the said land was cultivated by the deceased 3rd respondent, and it has rightly granted the occupancy rights in her favour. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error and the interference by this Court is uncalled for. 6. I have perused the impugned order carefully, re-assessed the entire material available on record with the assistance of the learned Counsel for either side. 7. The short question that arises for consideration is: whether the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is sustainable? 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father has purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 15.9.1961 from his vendor and thereafter, his name was entered in the RTC records. This material was very much available before the competent authority, but the Land Tribunal has not made any attempt to verify the documentary evidence and not issued any notice to the petitioner. This material was very much available before the competent authority, but the Land Tribunal has not made any attempt to verify the documentary evidence and not issued any notice to the petitioner. It reveals from the records that Form No. 7 was filed by the 3rd respondent claiming occupancy rights in respect of 5 items and there is no reference or claim in respect of the land bearing Sy.No. 17/108 measuring 0.85 acres. The learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Laxminarayan bhat, W.A. No. 4844/1995 disposed of on 24.7.1997, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has held thus: "So far as the description of the lands is concerned it may not be always possible for the tenants to give specific survey numbers or special survey numbers. That aspect will have to be investigated by the authorities with reference to the material on record. Therefore, we should not be merely carried away by the description of the land in the application itself." 9. In view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court as stated supra, the contention of the petitioner that there was no claim made by the deceased 3rd respondent in respect of the land in question of which the occupancy rights was confirmed in her favour does not require serious consideration in view of the fact that what has been granted to the applicant/deceased 3rd respondent is what matters. If the land Tribunal understood that her application is in respect of the land in question and that has been allotted to her, necessarily the matter needs adjudication. The Tribunal being the fact finding authority is the competent authority to reconsider the matter fresh, after giving opportunity to the petitioner and the LRs of the 3rd respondent. If the ratio of the law laid down by this Court as stated supra is taken into consideration, the same will be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Without further going into the merits of the case, on this ground alone the impugned order in so far as it relates to Sy. No. 17/108 measuring 0.85 acres is concerned is liable to be set aside. 10. Without further going into the merits of the case, on this ground alone the impugned order in so far as it relates to Sy. No. 17/108 measuring 0.85 acres is concerned is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) The Order dated 28.3.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal in TLR: 1638/1980-81 is hereby set aside. (ii) The matter stands remitted back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in so far it relates to Sy.No. 17/108 measuring 0.85 acres only. (iii) The Land Tribunal is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and the LRs of deceased 3rd respondent and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and Rules and conduct the enquiry as provided under Rules 17 and 18 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules read with Section 34 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, as expeditiously as possible. (iv) In other respect, the order of the Land Tribunal shall stands undisturbed. 11. The Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.