( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order made by the Land Tribunal, shiggaon (second respondent) on 10-7-1975 directing that the first respondent C. B. Kivudannavar be registered as occupant of 9 acres 16 guntas of agricultural land in RS. 88 of Hottur village in Shiggaon taluk, under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. ( 2 ) THE first respondent, claiming that he is a tenant personally cultivating the land in question, made an application before the Land Tribunal for grant of registration of occupancy. That application was opposed by the petitioner-landlord who contended that he himself was personally cultivating the land and the first respondent was not a tenant nor was he cultivating the land personally. The parties produced some documents before the Tribunal and got themselves examined. Thereafter the Tribunal made the impugned order holding that the first respondent is the tenant and directing that he be registered as occupant. ( 3 ) WE have perused the order of the Tribunal which is in Kannada. It has been filed as an enclosure (Ext. 1) with the objections filed by the first respondent. It reads thus : fcre^ori sdojsifc sojsuj^d rra,zkd o. si. 3o. 88 ^3j 9-16 wr^ eraadpfc b3rta|cand3i3o33^odo spssfcr ?3o. 7dg ws5r Q-03 and* *and5qcs> 3. wssrofca ^ctorte ad ^etse^ KJO wncs. ezsrrodcfo ssswon^s Jfc^a, $/a s5j3)?3dd aobandsoc^tf. di^ O23ra3d?k 3do O. si. rfo. ris^ TOrta sandacand^s. w ts^osoc^ w? $/5crt c33dsio3a csjsorasctojofcsetfosa 3of9$o3o arrows ^js^das^cs. sjj^ J^ja sandsoetfdo et3rc330rfo ^s3oand KSaerf^ TOrb rfjsc^ao, rfrfo o. si. ?sctoc!:ri^ $jart ezp ^jserinsdcio wosa ^ootosasooa 3sandfc wt^o^ci^cs iaodo ^?9 KSSSWD Sjss^cfts^ts. Oss^ftl^ rf ^asrfri^ 3joand?ocjo!)3ori wtsrnsdfjo rf:e3 e2t^jd To. ^o. ri^^ d^^croil 0330c33 SSrtd ^j5c^dssd3 Rturfcdd dodo JOOG)and3. "ss^oo" , ssojsfo andto o3 n^do: sojsu^d o. ?o. rfo. 88 ??; 9-16 0-03 and-$-rt tjandd ^^{fj^ ^ja jfocpede! esoj^ jjeo 48 (4)d?^ai3 tsssrnud ty ^od,3j to?ossra ss 3scands3d 7. xins^sj?^ ^^rf ^sid^ ep^jsfrinsdrfa t?oss E5jaeoc35co:?j5;o ^ja ?33 Qj3 doo^oj33 SS32rcjosij^qod CJDSOSa^o. ( 4 ) IT is clear that the order gives no reason for rejecting the contention of the petitioner and accepting the case of the first respondent. Mere subjective satisfaction of the; tribunal that the applicant before it is the tenant, is not sufficient. The order that is required to be passed is a speaking order. The order impugned cannot be called a speaking order at all. Mere subjective satisfaction of the; tribunal that the applicant before it is the tenant, is not sufficient. The order that is required to be passed is a speaking order. The order impugned cannot be called a speaking order at all. Merely stating that the claimant is a tenant, amounts to mere subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal. It must be objective satisfaction for which the. reasons for coming to that, conclusion must be disclosed in the order, as the order is open to judicial review by this Court under Art. 227 of the Constn. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court that if an order is not a speaking order, it is null and void. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, we allow this writ petition, quash the impugned order and direct the Land Tribunal, Shiggaon, to hear the case afresh and make an order in accordance with law. Under the interim order made by this Court, the first respondent was allowed to harvest the standing crop on depositing a sum of Rs. 3,000 in the Court of the Munsiff, Savanur, to the credit of OS. 21 of 1975 on the file of the said Court. That amount shall remain in the Court and shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the party that ultimately succeeds before rhe Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .