ORDER : The petitioners are the daughters of one Peersab, who is the landlord. He had filed an application for grant of occupancy rights pertaining to land Sy. No.25 measuring 9 acres situated at Tolamamadi village, Sedam Taluk, Gulbarga District. Respondent No.4 is the tenant. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights to respondent No.4. Questioning the same, the present petitions are filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order of the Tribunal is not a speaking order. That, it indicates that based on the verification of the records, occupancy rights are granted to the tenant. Hence, the same not being a speaking order is unsustainable. 4. However, there is a delay of thirty years in challenging the said order. It is stated that the petitioners are the only daughters of Peersab. That, they did not have a brother. That, they were not living in the same village after marriage. The second petitioner had requested the first petitioner to cultivate the lands. Accordingly, the first petitioner went to the land for the purpose of cultivation in March 2012. At that time, respondent No.4 interfered in the same and told them that he was granted occupancy rights. Thereafter, they applied for the certified copy of the order. Hence, there is a delay. 5. The same is objected to by the learned counsel for respondent No.4. He contends that the reasons assigned are not sufficient to condone the huge delay. 6. However, on hearing learned counsels, I’ am of the considered view that the petitioners have explained the delay satisfactorily. The petitioners are the daughters of the original landlord. They were not aware of the application being filed by their father. They were not even aware of the said order. It is only when they attempted to cultivate the land, they came to know of the impugned order. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. 7. So far as merits are concerned, reading of the order of the Tribunal would indicate absolute non-application of mind. Merely, by stating that the records of rights have been verified and therefore the tenant is entitled for grant of occupancy rights is not sufficient. The Tribunal would have to pass a speaking order taking into consideration all the relevant material on record. It has failed to do so. Merely, by stating that the records of rights have been verified and therefore the tenant is entitled for grant of occupancy rights is not sufficient. The Tribunal would have to pass a speaking order taking into consideration all the relevant material on record. It has failed to do so. A cryptic order like this cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 18.08.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Sedam, in file No.LRY/AP/2827/75-76 vide Annexure-L is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open. Both the parties are permitted to lead evidence in support of their respective cases.