ORDER : The case of the petitioner is that he is one of the grandsons of Sri Thippaiah, Son of late Thimmappa who was the original Khatedar of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.1/5 Chikkapalanahalli village, Kolaala Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, Tumakuru District, measuring 28 guntas prior to 1966-1967. After the death of Sri Thippaiah, his wife Smt.Yalerangamma became the Khatedar of the said lands by inheritance. After her death, the petitioner became the joint Khatedar by inheritance. Mutation was issued in 1985. Eversince then, he is in peaceful possession of the same along with 3 other persons. One Sri Bhyraiah, son of late Chikkaramaiah who is the father of respondents 3 to 6 was the Khatedar of agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 4/5 measuring 14 guntas and Survey No.15/3 measuring 18 ½ guntas of Chikkapalanahalli village, Kolaala Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, Tumakuru District. He sold both the lands in favour of the 7th respondent by way of registered sale deed dated 30-5-1969. The survey number of the land measuring 14 guntas is wrongly mentioned as 1/5 instead of 4/5. However, the katha was not changed and continued in the name of the original purchaser even after the execution of the registered sale deed. Therefore, the names of the subsequent purchasers have not been reflected in the Record of Rights. Respondents 3 to 6 who are the sons of Bhyraiah and respondent No.7 are the purchasers of the property. The tenant filed an application seeking grant of Occupancy rights stating Sri Bhyraiah and Sri S.R. Chanraiah as the owners of the land. By the impugned order the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the tenant, based on the consent given by the landlord. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is fraud that has occurred. That the land that has been sold is the land that belongs to the petitioner and not to the vendor. Therefore, the Land Tribunal could not have granted occupancy rights based on the consent. The same is disputed by the other side. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that there is substantial delay in filing the petition. The impugned order was passed in 1981 whereas the petitioner has filed this petition in 2009. 4. So far as delay is concerned, the same has been explained by the petitioner in para4 of the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that there is substantial delay in filing the petition. The impugned order was passed in 1981 whereas the petitioner has filed this petition in 2009. 4. So far as delay is concerned, the same has been explained by the petitioner in para4 of the petition. He submits that even though sale deeds were effected and the Land Tribunal passed an order, none of the entries for any of the lands were effected. They continued in the name of the vendors of the land. It is only in November, 2009 in view of his daughter’s marriage that when he intended to get the names altered in the katha, he came to know of the sale deed as well as the order of the Tribunal. 5. On considering the reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that sufficient cause has been shown for delay in filing the writ petition. The delay has been explained which is supported by the fact that none of the records have been changed inspite of the sale deed and the order of the Land Tribunal. Hence, I do not find that the petition could be rejected on the ground of delay. 6. So far as merits are concerned, there is no adjudication of the claim of the tenant while granting occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal held that there is no objection by the land owner and hence occupancy rights have been granted. The entire case of the petitioner is that the alleged landlord is not the owner of the lands in question. It is the petitioner who is the owner. Therefore, the consent that has been given by the landlord is of no consequence so far as he is concerned. That the Land Tribunal has failed to conduct an enquiry while granting occupancy rights to the tenant. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order dated 30-10-1981 passed by the 2nd respondent Land Tribunal, Koratagere Taluk, Tumakuru District, is set aside. The Land Tribunal is directed to consider the matter afresh by taking into consideration all the material evidence on record. Both the parties are entitled to lead fresh evidence before the Land Tribunal. All contentions kept open. Rule made absolute.