Govinda Bhat, C.J.
1. This writ appeal preferred by a land-holder is directed against the order dated 8-12-1975 made by Venkataramiah, .T., in W. P. 5739 of 1975 rejecting the writ petition at the preliminary hearing stage.
2. The appellant us the holder of three agricultural lands comprised in Survey 'Nos. 10/1, 11/2 and 89/1 of Bychanahalli village, Kushalangar Ta-fuk, Coorg District. The second respondent made an application before the Land Tribunal. Soniwarpet Taluk, Coorg District, under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for grant of occupancy right in respect of the aforesaid three lands alleging that he is a tenant of the lands personally cultivating the same immediately prior to 1-3-1974. On the said application, notice was issued to the -appellant land-holder. It is relevant to observe that before notice was issued to the appellant, the application of the second respondent in form No. 7 was not verified by the Tahsildar with reference to the entries in the Revenue records as he is required to do under Rule 19 of the Rules made under the Act. The Tahsildar has merely noted that he has 'verified'. He has not staled whether the name of the applicant appears in the Record of Rights as the tenant of the lands in question. The appellant's son appeared before the Tribunal and he was examined. The second respondent was examined and on his behalf the Patel of the village was also examined. Thereafter, the Tribunal made an order which reads thus:--
'28-10-75-- Case called. The applicant is present. On behalf of the landlord, his son M. N. Ramachandrappa appeared. He gave deposition on be-half of his father. Witness of Patei is recorded. Although the applicant, has no records, according to enquiry, the Tribunal has come to conclusion mat the applicant is the tenant of the lands. Therefore, the lands have vested in Government. The Tribunal determines that the applicant is the ordinary tenant and confirms the occupancy of Sy. No. 10/1, 11/2 and 89/1 of Bychanahalli village in the name of the applicant Parivarada Jourappa.'
The order of the Tribunal granting occupancy right to the second respondent was challenged by the appellant before this Court in W. P. No. 5739 of 1975. The matter came up before Venkaiaramiah, J. for preliminary hearing. The learned single Judge appears to have directed the counsel for the appellant to produce the deposition of the witnesses and after discussing the evidence of the witnesses he rejected the writ petition holding that the Tribunal has found, on the material placed before it, that the second respondent was a tenant and was, therefore, entitled to be registered as its occupant.
3. The order of the Tribunal, it will be seen, is not a speaking order. It does not state as to what is the evidence given by the contesting parties and their witnesses. It also makes no reference to the presumption arising under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and does not state whether the same has been rebutted in any manner by the second respon-dent. The Record of Rights shows that the name of the second respondent does not find a place therein. On the contrary the name of the land-holder has been shown as the person cultivating the land immediately prior to 1-3-1974. The burden, therefore, is clearly on the second respondent to show that the entries in the Record of Rights 'are not correct. It is for the Tribunal, which is the final authority on the question of fact, to apply, its mind with reference to the material on record and say whether the presumption arising under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act has been rebutted or not. The Tribunal has also to state what is the evidence or other material placed before it on the basis of which it has come to the conclusion that the lands in question are tenanted lands. whether the same have vested in the State Government on 1-3-1974 and whether the applicant before it is the person cultivating the land immediately prior to 1-3-1974.
4. It is settled law that an order of a Tribunal which is not a speaking order is void in law. It is not for this Court to sit as an appellate Tribunal to examine the records and justify the conclusion of the Tribunal. That is not the function of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the order of the Tribunal is not a speaking order, that calls for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the order of the Tribunal should be quashed and the matter remitted back to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh.
5. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was in error in himself examining the material on record and trying to support the conclusion of the Tribunal. That is the function exclusively of the Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was in error in rejecting the writ petition.
6. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and, in reversal of the order ofthe learned Single Judge, quash theorder of the Tribunal dated 28-10-1975made in L. R. M. /VI/E/7/75/76 andremit the matter to the Tribunal foradjudication afresh in the light of thisorder. Parties to bear their own costs.Ordered accordingly.
7. Appeal allowed.