G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Venkataramiah, J., D/- 8-12-1975 made in Writ Petn. No. 5741 of 1975 rejecting the appellant's writ petition at the preliminary hearing stage.
2. The appellant is the landlord owning 3 acres of agricultural land in Koodlur village, Somwarpet Taluk, in Survey Nos. 19/1 and 19/2. The second respondent alleging that he is the tenant of the said land filed an application under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy right. The said application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the second-respondent is not a tenant of the said land and the appellant is personally cultivating the land. The par ties beside examining themselves, have examined some witnesses on either side. The Tribunal granted the application of the second-respondentconfirming occupancy rights in respect of 3 acres of land in Survey Nos. 19/1 and 19/2 of Koodlur Village. The order of the Tribunalreads thus:
'Order dated 17-9-75.
Case called: The applicant and the landlord present. Depositions of the appellant recorded. He says that he was cultivating the land from the last seven years by paying half share. But the landlord denies and says that the applicant was cultivating the land on cooli basis. The landlord further says that he had obtained signature to an application by the applicant agreeing to withdraw the application. The Tribunal feels that the applicant is cultivating the lands on wara basis. The Tribunal therefore determines that the applicant is ordinary tenant and further confirms the occupancy of 3.00 acres in Sy. Nos. 19/1 and 19/2 of Koodlur Village. Sd/-Asst. Commr. & Chairman,Land Reforms TribunalSomwarpet.'
The above order was challenged by the appellant before this Court in W. P. No. 5741 of 1975 which came up for preliminary hearing before Venkataramiah, J. who appears to have looked into some documents produced in the writ petition and made an order rejecting the writ petition and upholding the order of the Tribunal.
3. The second respondent has not appeared before us despite notice. The first-respondent, Land Tribunal is represented before us by Sri M. P. Chandrakantraj Urs, Senior High Court Government Advocate, and he has made available the records of the case before the Land Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal which has been fully set out by us is clearly not a speaking order. It makes no reference to the entries in the Record of Rights from which a statutory presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act arises. It was stated before us that the name of the appellant is shown in the Record of Rights as the person cultivating the land. When there is a statutory presumption arising from the fact that the name of the appellant is entered in the Record of Rights as the person cultivating the land, the Tribunal has to give reasons for holding that the statutory presumption has been rebutted by other evidence on record. The evidence on record before the Tribunal consisting of oral evidence has not been discussed. The mere subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal that the applicant before it is a tenant is not sufficient to sustain its decision. What is required of the Tribunal is an objective consideration of the evidence on record and therefore the Tribunal has to give reasons for its conclusions. The scope of the enquiry before the Tribunal under the Act has been laid down by this Court in more than one decision. When the order of the Tribunal is not a speaking order, it amounts to no adjudication at all. Such an order is a void order. This Court, when such an order is challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, cannot give its own reasons to support the order, which, in effect, would mean that this Court is taking upon itself the functions of the Land Tribunal. The learned single Judge ought to have quashed the impugned order on the sole ground that it is not a speaking order without going into the merits of the case.
4. Therefore, we allow this appealand reversing the order of the learned single Judge, quash the impugnedorder dated 17-9-1975 made in caseNo. LRM VII 13/3/74-75 on the file ofthe first respondent and remit thematter to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh after affording both theparties reasonable opportunity of being heard. Parties to bear their owncosts. Ordered accordingly.
5. Appeal allowed.