( 1 ) THIS is one of the many cases coming to our notice where the Mysore revenue Appellate Tribunal has wasted so much of public time on so trivial a matter. ( 2 ) THE petitioner before us, filed a revision petition under S. 207 of the Mysore Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act, 1959 before the Tribunal. The petition was posted before a Bench consisting of Mr. N. S. Ramachandra and Mr. C. S. Wadeyar. On hearing the petition, the members differed in their opinion on material points and, finally they said thus :"as therr is difference of opinion between us, the case shall be placed before the Hon'ble Chairman for being referred to another member under the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of S. 41 of the Mysore Land revenue Act, 1964, for opinion on the following points : (i) Whether the collective value of the 42 sites should be taken into consideration for fulfilling the requirements of Rule 10 (2) of the mysore Panchayats (Acquisition and Transfer of Moveable and Immoveable property) Rules, 1960? (ii) If so, whether the publication in the Mysore Gazette of notice of sale is directory or mandatory? (iii) Whether the Assistant Commissioner was required to report the action taken by him in dismissing the petition against the sale of these sites under S. 200 (2) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and local Boards Act, 1959? "accordingly the matter came up before a third Member of the Tribunal mr. T. D. Ramanathan. The learned Member, without deciding the points referred to him very curiously passed an order as follows:"case called. Parties and Counsel (Pr) As Sri N. S. Ramachandra who was one of the members of the Division Bench, is transferred, the appeal cannot be finally disposed of. Hence appeal has to be heard afresh by a different Bench. The record may be placed before the Chairman for constituting a Bench to hear the appeal afresh. " ( 3 ) THE Chairman perhaps thought, that the above order was binding upon him. He constituted another Bench for re-hearing the revision petition. Before the said Bench, Counsel for the petitioner, raised an objection that the matter cannot be heard afresh by another Bench, but it should be heard only by a third Member of the Tribunal. On that objection, two questions were formulated for being decided by a full Bench of five Members. He constituted another Bench for re-hearing the revision petition. Before the said Bench, Counsel for the petitioner, raised an objection that the matter cannot be heard afresh by another Bench, but it should be heard only by a third Member of the Tribunal. On that objection, two questions were formulated for being decided by a full Bench of five Members. The questions are," (a) When there is a difference of opinion between two Members constituting a Bench, and this is referred by the Chairman to a third member for opinion as required under the Mysore Land Revenue Act and during that time the two Members giving the original opinions, are transferred or leave the Tribunal, is it open to the third Member to return the papers to the Chairman requesting him to constitute a new bench to hear the case. (b) In case the third Member gives his opinion would it be legal for tie Chairman to constitute a new Bench to pronounce the judgment according to the view expressed by the majority among the three Members including those who first heard it. Even though the members who first heard it are no longer Members of the MRAT would this be in order in view of S. 41 (3) of the Mysore Land Revenue act, 1964?"the matter appears to have been elaborately argued before the full Bench. Three Members of the Bench gave one opinion and the remaining two, the opposite. ( 4 ) THE final conclusion of the Members constituting the Full Bench, may be thus stated in their own words :"in the result, in view of the majority opinion the first point of reference is answered in the affirmative and the second point of reference is answered in the negative. "in accordance with the said opinion, the revision petition was again posted before another Bench for re-hearing. It is at that stage, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 questioning the jurisdiction of the said Bench to re-hear and dispose of his revision petition. ( 5 ) THE trouble started in the case by the order made by Mr. T. D. Ramanathan, referring the matter to the Chairman with a request to constitute another Bench for rehearing the revision petition. 226 and 227 questioning the jurisdiction of the said Bench to re-hear and dispose of his revision petition. ( 5 ) THE trouble started in the case by the order made by Mr. T. D. Ramanathan, referring the matter to the Chairman with a request to constitute another Bench for rehearing the revision petition. The reason given by him was that one of the Members of the Division Bench where there was a difference of opinion, was transferred in the meanwhile. This appears to be a very strange reason, completely overlooking the provisions of s. 41 (3) of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964. Proviso to the said subsection reads thus:"provided that where the Bench hearing an appeal, revision, reference or application is composed of two Members, and the Members composing the Bench differ in opinion on any point material for the decision of the case, they shall state such point, and the case shall then be heard upon that point only by another Memer of the Tribunal and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Members, including those who first heard it. " ( 6 ) IT seems to us that the said proviso does not admit of any doubt, as the one entertained by Mr. T. D. Ramanathan. It does not give any discretion for the third Member to refer the matter back to the Chairman, nor does it give any jurisdiction to the Chairman to constitute another bench for re-hearing the matter. It is admitted in this case that each member of the Original Bench gave two different opinions. Mr. N. S. Ramachandra held that the revision petition should be dismissed. Mr. C. S. Wodeyar said that the petition should be allowed. They formulated three points for the opinion of the third Member of the Tribunal. The differing opinions of the said Members were signed and they are on the record. When they referred the points, the case shall then be heard upon those points only, by another Member of the Tribunal and the case shall be derided according to the opinion of the majority of the Members, including those who first heard it. It is immaterial if any of the Members who first heard the case was transferred in the meanwhile. In that view, the earlier order made by the Chairman constituting Mr. It is immaterial if any of the Members who first heard the case was transferred in the meanwhile. In that view, the earlier order made by the Chairman constituting Mr. T. D. Ramanathan as a third Member to decide the points was a proper order and he should have heard the case on the points referred to him. But it is relevant to state that Mr. T. D. Ramanathan is no longer a Member of the tribunal and, therefore it would be proper for the Chairman now to refer the disputed points to a third Member of the Tribunal for decision in accordance with the proviso to S. 41 (3 ). (underlining (italics) is ours ). ( 7 ) IN the result, we allow the petition, set aside the order of the full Bench, with a direction to the Chairman to refer the disputed points made in Revision Petition No. 229 of 1967 (VP) before a third Member of the Tribunal for decision in accordance with the proviso to S. 41 (3) of the Mysore Land Revenue Act. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .