ORDER : The petitioner claims to be a tenant. That he and his family members have been cultivating an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.87/p and 3 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.83/7 of Thattekere village, Hassan Hobli, Hassan Taluk. That they have been a tenant under respondents No.2 and 4 since the time of their forefathers and long prior to coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. On coming into force of the amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the petitioner made an application in Form No.7 to the first respondent, the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights. Applications were also filed by various other tenants cultivating different extent of lands in different survey numbers under the respondents. By the order dated 26.12.1979 the petitioner was registered as the occupant of the schedule lands. The original landlords challenged the same in W.P. Nos.1723/1989, 18423/1989 and 5469/1980. By the orders dated 03.02.1983 and 16.06.1983 the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh consideration. Thereafter by the order dated 31.08.1988 the petitioner was once again registered as an occupant. The orders were passed with respect to the other tenants also. The landlords once again challenged the same in W.P. Nos.28680685/1991 and W.P.No.30167/1993. By the orders dated 22.08.1996 and 18.08.1998 the order of the Tribunal was set aside in so far as it relates to the claim of the petitioner and others and permitted the impleading applicants to make applications before the Land Grant Tribunal. By the order dated 31.03.2003 the tenants were registered as occupants of different extent of lands in different survey numbers. Questioning the same the present petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. Even though the other tenants sought to be impleaded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has committed gross error in not considering the plea of the petitioners. That the petitioners have been granted lands in terms of Annexure D in four survey numbers, namely in Sy.No.87 to an extent of 3 guntas, Sy.No.88 to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas, Sy.No.84 to an extent of 4 guntas, Sy.No.85 to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas. It is contended that they applied for different survey numbers but were granted different survey numbers and hence interference is called for. 3. It is contended that they applied for different survey numbers but were granted different survey numbers and hence interference is called for. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate disputes the same. Counsel for the other respondents are absent. 4. On hearing the learned counsel I’ am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The grant of occupancy sought for by the petitioner is to an extent of one acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.87/p and 3 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.87/3. The lands that are sought for by the petitioner have been granted to the various other persons as could be indicated in the impugned order at Annexure D itself. Sy.No.83/7 has been distributed to the tenants mentioned at Sl.Nos.4, 5 and 6 of the impugned order. These persons are not parties to this proceeding. Therefore, in my considered view no relief could be granted to the petitioner. One of the claims of the petitioner is that the occupancy right in respect of the lands that he has sought for has not been granted and that for the land which he has not sought for is granted. Hence it would stand relatable to the very person who has received the land which is sought for by the petitioner. If the petition is to be allowed, then the order of the Land Tribunal granting certain lands to certain persons would have to be set aside, without hearing them. It is not permissible to do so. 5. It is further contended that so far the grant of land to the persons mentioned at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 6 are concerned, they too were the subject matter of a writ petition in W.P.No.13875/2006. Subsequently, the matter has been disposed off as being settled out of Court. Based on these contentions also, I’am of the considered view that no relief could be granted to the petitioner since the lands which have been allotted to the persons therein have been since settled, the same lands are claimed by the petitioner therein. Without hearing the persons to be affected no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Hence for all these grounds, I’ am of the considered view that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Hence the petition is dismissed.