ORDER H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 5-8-2011, passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-A. By the impugned order at Annexure-A, the first respondent has set aside the order effecting Phodi and has directed the Tahsildar, Chintamani Taluk, to reconsider the matter by issuing notice to the concerned parties. 2. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. Briefly stated the facts are: The petitioners is a registered Sangha to promote the cause of Vokkaligas in Chintamani Town. The petitioner requested the State Government to grant land for promoting its objects. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 26-3-1993, granted 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 39 of Malappalli Village at the cost of Rs. 20,760/- per acre. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,03,946/-. Thereafter, Grant Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the Revenue Authorities to effect Phodi and fix the boundaries. The Revenue Authorities effected the Phodi and fixed the boundaries. Sy. No. 39 was renumbered as Sy. No. 125. Thereafter, the Revenue Authorities have conducted survey of Sy. No. 39 and prepared a report behind the back of the petitioner. In the said report, it is stated that the land granted in favour of Smt. Akkayyamma falls within the Durasthi in Sy. No. 125. The respondent 5, the son of Smt. Akkayyamma has filed revision petition before the first respondent. The first respondent by order dated 5-8-2011 has allowed the revision petition and set aside the Durasthi (Phodi) and has directed the Tahsildar, Chintamani Taluk, to reconsider the matter by issuing notice to the concerned parties. Therefore, this writ petition. 4. The respondent 5 has filed statement of objections contending that the Durasthi (Phodi) in favour of the petitioner-Sangha was made without notice to the respondent 5 and his mother. They were not aware of the survey. The grant made in favour of the petitioner in Sy. No. 39 is subsequent to the grant made in favour of the mother of respondent 5. The land granted in favour of the grantee was measured and boundaries were fixed. Pursuant to the complaint of the respondent 6 to Lokayukta, which was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, it was found that the Durasthi was made without verifying the darkasth records. No. 39 is subsequent to the grant made in favour of the mother of respondent 5. The land granted in favour of the grantee was measured and boundaries were fixed. Pursuant to the complaint of the respondent 6 to Lokayukta, which was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, it was found that the Durasthi was made without verifying the darkasth records. Since the petitioner-Sangha started disturbing the possession of respondent 5, he preferred revision petition before the first respondent. The first respondent has rightly allowed the revision petition and therefore, it does not call for interference. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustainable in law. He also submitted that the impugned order is in violation of Section 56(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Further he submitted that the land was granted in favour of the petitioner-Sangha in the year 1993. Thereafter, Phodi has been effected and without notice to the petitioner the impugned order has been passed. The revision petition was barred by time. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustainable in law. 6. The learned Counsel for respondent 5 submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the respondent 1 taking into consideration that the land granted in favour of the mother of respondent 5 was also included while making Durasthi of Sy. No. 125 has set aside the Durasthi (Phodi) and directed the Tahsildar, Chintamani Taluk to reconsider the matter by issuing notice to the concerned parties. Therefore, the impugned order does not call be interference. 7. The learned AGA also supported the impugned order. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned order calls for interference? 10. It is relevant to note, 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 39 of Malappalli Village has been granted in favour of the petitioner-Sangha in the year 1993. Thereafter, Durasthi (Phodi) has been effected and boundaries have been fixed. Sy. No. 39 has been renumbered as Sy. No. 125. Thereafter, it appears, survey has been conducted without notice to the petitioner-Sangha. It is stated, it was found that the land granted in favour of Smt. Akkayamma, the mother of respondent 5 falls within the Durasthi in Sy. No. 125. Sy. No. 39 has been renumbered as Sy. No. 125. Thereafter, it appears, survey has been conducted without notice to the petitioner-Sangha. It is stated, it was found that the land granted in favour of Smt. Akkayamma, the mother of respondent 5 falls within the Durasthi in Sy. No. 125. Thereafter, the respondent 5 has preferred revision petition before the first respondent. By order dated 5-8-2011, the first respondent has set aside the Durasthi (Phodi) and has directed the Tahsildar, Chintamani Taluk, to reconsider the matter. 11. Section 56(2) and 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 read as follows: 56. (2) If, in any case, it shall appear to the Tribunal or to such Officer aforesaid, that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled, or reversed, the Tribunal or such officer may pass such order as may be deemed fit: Provided that no order shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard. (3) No application for revision under this section and no power of revision on such application shall be exercised against any order in respect of which an appeal under this Chapter has been preferred and no application for revision shall be entertained unless such application is presented within a period of four months from the date of such order: Provided that any Revenue Officer or Survey Officer referred to in sub-section (1) may exercise power under this section in respect of any order against which no appeal has been preferred under this Chapter at any time within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. Explanation.--In computing the period of limitation for the purpose of this sub-section, any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or an injunction by any Court shall be excluded. It is clear, Section 56(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 provides for an opportunity to the interested parties. Section 56(3) provides for limitation. In the present case, the petitioner was not heard in the matter. The petitioner is not a party to the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law as it is in violation of Section 56(2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964. Section 56(3) provides for limitation. In the present case, the petitioner was not heard in the matter. The petitioner is not a party to the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law as it is in violation of Section 56(2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-A, dated 5-8-2011, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the first respondent with a direction to reconsider the same, in accordance with law, by giving opportunity to the parties and impleading the petitioners-Sangha as party to the proceedings. The question of limitation and other contentions are left open.