fresh consideration. The land in question is an Inam land and as such, under the provisions of Karnataka Religious Inam Abolition Act, 1955, the respondent No.2, being the competent authority, rejected the claim made by the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner herein has wrongly stated the death of his father as 15th October, 2020 instead of 15th August, 2010. Having taken note of the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 herein, I am of the view that the father of the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court has remanded the matter to Land Tribunal and the petitioner herein claims, the right in respect of the property in question through the Will said to have been executed by his father on 14th August, 2010 and died on 15th August, 2010 and therefore, though there is an error in mentioning the date of death as 15th October, 2020, the same cannot be a basis to disentitle the right of the petitioner in respect of the subject land, if the petitioner has made out a case for conferment of occupancy right. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent No.2 has not considered the petition on merits and therefore, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the respondent No.2 to consider the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of
