ORDER Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. The petitioner has impugned the Land Tribunal's order dated 29-6-2002 (Annexure-A) rejecting the petitioner's Form 7 for the grant of occupancy rights in respect of 14 acres 4 guntas at Sy. No. 68/1A of Alur Village. Sri Jagadish Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has proceeded on the presumption that the lands are already converted. He submits that there is no conversion order. Without prejudice to this submission, he contends that the land has continued to be an agricultural land even after 1925, in which year the said lands are stated to have been converted. He submits that the mutation entry at Annexure-B shows that the petitioner's grandfather was a protected tenant in respect of 14 acres 4 guntas of the land at Sy. No. 68/1A. The said mutation is effected on 9-5-1948. If the lands were to be converted into the non-agricultural lands in 1925, such mutation would not have been made at all, so contends the learned Counsel. He submits that the land is shown as vested in the Government, as per mutation Entry 1218 (Annexure-C). 2. Sri Jagadish Patil brings to my notice the record of rights from the years 1963-1964 to 1974-1975. All of them show the name of the petitioner. The method of cultivation is shown as 3' (cultivation by the tenant). He submits that in the year 1989, for the first time, the name of 'Department of Irrigation is shown in the revenue records, as they were acquired for its purpose and benefit. 3. Sri V.R. Datar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent 3 submits that, as the lands have lost their agricultural character way back in 1925, they are not vested in the Government. The question of granting the occupancy rights in respect of the lands, which are not vested in the Government, would not arise at all. 4. He submits that way back in 1926 itself, Dharmashala building is constructed. The remaining land is acquired in two phases -- in the first phase for the purpose of Gavathana and in the second phase for the purpose of Sinthamani Irrigation Project. 5. He submits that there has been no tenant-landlord relationship between the petitioner's ancestors and the respondent 3. He submits that way back in 1926 itself, Dharmashala building is constructed. The remaining land is acquired in two phases -- in the first phase for the purpose of Gavathana and in the second phase for the purpose of Sinthamani Irrigation Project. 5. He submits that there has been no tenant-landlord relationship between the petitioner's ancestors and the respondent 3. He submits that the perusal of the impugned order reveals that the large chunks of lands are phada lands and that they are submerged under the Almatti reservoir. On the remaining land measuring about 2 acres, the buildings have come up. 6. He submits that, as the petitioner has failed to show that the land in question is vested in the Government and to show that he was a tenant in respect thereof, the Land Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of this petition. 7. Sri K.S. Patil, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 fairly brings to my notice from the L.C.Rs. the probationary Tahsildar's note dated 20-11-1980. The said note states that the land measuring 14 acres 4 guntas at Sy. No. 68/1A is wrongly mentioned in the records of the Land Records Department as the non-agricultural land. The note further states that, as the land in question is under the agricultural use, it be assessed for land revenue. He submits that the materials produced by the petitioner does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal. 8. I have browsed through the L.C.Rs. made available by Sri K.S. Patil, the learned Government Pleader. The L.C.Rs. do not contain the non-agricultural conversion order stated to have been issued in the year 1925. The probationary Tahsildar's note dated 20-11-1980 reads as follows.-- Below Endt. No. LND. CR. 625, dated 6-10-1980 of the Tahsildar, Bagalkot. No. 834, Sitimani 20-11-1980. Resubmitted to the Tahsildar, Bagalkot. 2. The Total extent of land Sy. No. 68 of Alur Village was A17-28G out of this area an area A3-28G has already been acquired during 1953 for the Village Gavathana and the same has been effected in the village records as per ME Nos. 1027 and 1051, dated 1-12-1962 and 1-1-1964. The land Sy. No. 68 has been renumbered as under: During the course of the local enquiry it is seen that the land bearing Sy. 1027 and 1051, dated 1-12-1962 and 1-1-1964. The land Sy. No. 68 has been renumbered as under: During the course of the local enquiry it is seen that the land bearing Sy. No. 68/A-1 measuring 14-4 is under cultivation and that it is wrongly mentioned in the records of Land Records Department as non-agriculture. A Panchanama to the effect that the land is under cultivation has been drawn and enclosed for favour of perusal. Hence the Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot may kindly be moved to fix the Assessment as per new rate under Section 84 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in consultation with the Land Records Department. As it is under agriculture use. Sd/- xxx 20-11-1980 Probationary Tahsildar and F.G.R.I., Sitimani 9. The perusal of this note reveals that there is no change in the agricultural character of the land in question. The impugned order does not even refer to that, much less considering it. On the short ground of the exclusion of the relevant materials from consideration, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 10. The mutation Entry 637 (Annexure-B) showing the name of the petitioner's grandfather as the protected tenant and the mutation Entry 1218 (Annexure-C) vesting the land in the Government have also not weighed with the Tribunal. Further, the record of rights from 1963-1964 to 1974-1975 contain the name of the petitioner in the cultivator's column. The Land Tribunal has not considered the documentary evidence placed on its record. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh enquiry in according with law. Both the petitioner and the respondent 3 are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal on 7-10-2013 without waiting for any notice from the Land Tribunal. The liberty is reserved to both the parties to adduce additional/fresh evidence, if they so desire. 12. Even if the land in question is compulsorily acquired, the order by the Land Tribunal granting or not granting the occupancy rights would in effect determine the entitlement of the parties to receive the compensation. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.