JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.—The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition NO. 28364/97 dt.29.11,2007 is called in question in this appeal. One Narayana Shetty had filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos. 59/3 measuring 06 cents, 59/1B measuring 3 acres 25 cents, 59/1A3 measuring 0.22 cents, 53/1 measuring 3 acres 46 cents of Kondemoole Village, Mangalore Taluk. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the applicant. The same was challenged by the landlords in W.P.Nos.2587, 6042 and 6043/82, which petitions were allowed and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Land Tribunal by its order dt.31.12.1984 rejected the application of the tenant on the ground that it is not an agricultural land and Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Challenging the same a Writ Petition was filed before this court by the tenant in W.P.9238/85 and again the Writ Petition was allowed and the matter was remanded. After remand, the lands were inspected by Land Tribunal on 6.4.1987, wherein it was noticed by the Land Tribunal about the existence of Mango trees, cashew trees and wild jack fruit trees and the application of the tenant was rejected. Thereafter the matter was taken up before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in LRAT 187/87. Since there was a difference of opinion in regard to the subject matter between the judicial member and the revenue member, the matter was referred to the court of Civil Judge, Mangalore for his opinion. When the matter was pending before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Mangalore, by virtue of amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the LRs. of Narayana Shetty had to file a Writ Petition in W.P. NO. 28364/97. The !earned Single Judge considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, considering the definition of the word, Agriculture land as the land was Going used for subservient purpose set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and allowed the Writ Petiten on the ground that the lands in question were agricultural lands and the LRs. of the original tenant are entitled for grant of occupancy right. Accordingly, a direction was issued to grant occupancy rights in favour of the LRs. This order is called in question in this appeal by the landlord. 2. We have heard the counsel for both the parties also the Govt. of the original tenant are entitled for grant of occupancy right. Accordingly, a direction was issued to grant occupancy rights in favour of the LRs. This order is called in question in this appeal by the landlord. 2. We have heard the counsel for both the parties also the Govt. Advocate. 3. On hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge and in the background of notes prepared by the Land Tribunal and when the matter was inspected, we are of the view that the Learned Single Judge has committed an error in directing the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights to the LRs. of the original claimant without directing the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in accordance with law as the learned Single Judge did not consider the evidence let in by the parties. The Tribunal had rejected the application on the ground that the land in question were not agricultural land and therefore the claimant was not entitled for grant of occupancy rights. If the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the lands in question would fall under the diminution of Agricultural land, it was required for him to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Without doing so the learned Single Judge has straightaway passed an order directing the Land Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in favour of the LRs. of the tenants. 4. In the circumstances, we are of the view that remanding the matter to the Tribunal and the same is required to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh keeping open all contentions. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and remanded. It is needless to state both the parties are entitled to lead evidence afresh in accordance with law. 5. Till the disposal of the matter by the learned Single Judge, no party shall put up any construction.