ORDER : One Smt. Thimakka since dead by legal representatives had sought for grant of occupancy rights as a tenant with respect to land bearing Sy.No.147 measuring 01 acre 30 guntas of a total extent of 05 acres 10 guntas of Narayanaghatta Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The same was granted by the Land Tribunal by the order dated 29.08.1979. It was challenged by the land owner in W.P.No.8579/1982. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was constituted and therefore, the writ petition was transferred to the Authority. After its abolition, a Civil Petition was filed and the said Civil Petition was converted to a writ petition in W.P.No.29272 of 1996. By the order dated 16.11.2005, the said writ petition was allowed. The order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to Smt. Thimakka and her legal representatives was quashed. The matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to hold a denova enquiry, to permit both the parties to produce the additional evidence, if any. 2. Thereafter, the instant writ petition is filed by the purchasers of the land granted to the tenant, Smt. Thimakka. It is contended that after the grant of land in favour of Smt. Thimakka, he has purchased an extent of 01 acre 30 guntas by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 20.06.2001. Documents have been produced in order to substantiate the same. It is his further contention that he has also purchased the land under the ownership of the landlords of the said survey number of the remaining extent of 03 acres 20 guntas. By relying on the said documents, he pleads that the land owner was aware of the sale of the land by the tenant to the petitioner herein. The same was suppressed in the earlier writ petition in W.P. No.29272/1996. Since the order granting occupancy rights to the tenant has been set aside by the said order, his rights have been effected. Hence, this writ petition seeking to recall the order dated 16.11.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.29212/96. 3. Sri Papi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Respondent No.1 (a) and (c) defends the said order. He contends that if at all the petitioner has any right that he seeks to exercise, the same can be adjudicated before the Land Tribunal. 4. 3. Sri Papi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Respondent No.1 (a) and (c) defends the said order. He contends that if at all the petitioner has any right that he seeks to exercise, the same can be adjudicated before the Land Tribunal. 4. On hearing learned counsels, I’ am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. 5. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to Smt. Thimakka and her legal representatives by the order dated 28.09.1979. The same was challenged by the landlord by filing Writ Petition No.29272/1996, which was initially numbered W.P.No.8579/1982. There is substantial material produced by the petitioner in this case through the Sale Deeds to indicate that the respondent-landlord was well aware of the sale effected by the tenant in favour of the petitioner herein. Notwithstanding the same, the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court while it passed the order dated 16.11.2005. Incase, the Sale Deeds were brought to the notice of the Court, necessarily the Court would have considered the same and dealt with it in accordance with law. Having not done so and in view of the same being challenged, it is just and necessary that he should have been heard before any order could have been passed by the Writ Court. Necessarily, the order passed in the writ petition effects his interest since he is the owner of the land, in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 20.06.2001. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I deem it just and necessary that the order requires to be reviewed. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 16.11.2005 passed in W.P.No.29272 of 1996 is reviewed and recalled. W.P.No.29272 of 1996 is restored to file.