( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the order made by the Land Tribunal, devanahalli, dt. 18-12-1975 in Case No. LRF. 34 of 1974-75. The third respondent had filed an application under S. 48a of the Land Reforms Act for registering himself as an occupant of 2 acres and 28 guntas in Survey no. 56/l of Devanahalli. That declaration had been filed on 27-12-1974. 'the case had been posted to 21-11-1975 and was adjourned to 18-12-1975 for production of documents. On 21-11-1975, it would appear that the third respondent Narayanappa and the second respondent Shankar Rap were present before the Tribunal. On the next date of hearing the petitioner was also present at the time of hearing before the Tribunal. By then, he appears to have filed an application to register himself as an occupant of the entire extent of land (2 acres and 28 guntas) in Sy. No. 56/l. That application appears to have been sent by registered post on 13-11- 1975. He appears to have presented another application before the Tribunal on 29-11-1975 (as is to be found from the records sent by the Tribunal to this Court ). In that application or statement, he stated that he has been cultivating the land from the time of his ancestors and on 11-11-1975 when he was talking with Shankar Rao, a notice had been served on Shankar Rao, issued from the office of the Tribunal and the date of hearing was 21-11-1975. He went on to state that Narayanappa was not in possession of the land and Shankar Rao had no interest in Sy. No. 56/1 inasmuch as that in about 1962 there was a division between Shankar Rao and his sons in which Sy. No. 56/l was allotted to Shankar Rao's sons and he was delivering gutta to the said sons. He also stated that he had submitted an application for registering himself as an occupant on 13-11-1975. He also presented an affidavit explaining the delay in filing that application. That affidavit had been sworn to on 17-11-1975 before the Judicial Magistrate, doddaballapur. No. 56/l was allotted to Shankar Rao's sons and he was delivering gutta to the said sons. He also stated that he had submitted an application for registering himself as an occupant on 13-11-1975. He also presented an affidavit explaining the delay in filing that application. That affidavit had been sworn to on 17-11-1975 before the Judicial Magistrate, doddaballapur. ( 2 ) ON 18-12-1975, statement of Shankar Rao was recorded by the tribunal which was to the effect that Narayanappa was cultivating two acres of land as Vara tenant and Khata may be made out in his name in accordance with law. Narayanappa's statement was also recorded. He stated before the Tribunal that he was cultivating 2 acres out of Survey no. 56/l for the past 8 or 10 years under Shankar Rao and the rest of the land viz 28 guntas was being cultivated by Chikkaveerappa since 8 or 10 years. He prayed that 2 acres of land may be made out in his name and the balance may be made out in the name of Chikkaveerappa. On the basis of these statements, the Land Tribunal proceeded to make an order registering Narayanappa as occupant in respect of 2 acres of land out of sy. No. 56/1. In the order it was further stated that with regard to chikkaveerappa orders would be passed when that case was taken up. The order also states that Chikkaveerappa was also present and it was submitted by him that he had filed a declaration about a month back and further that he submitted that he and applicant Narayanappa are cultivating the land as tenants from the year 1962. The order also records that pahanies were verified and therefore the Tribunal was convinced that the applicant Narayanappa was a tenant to an extent of 2 acres and chikkaveerappa to an extent of 28 guntas. The order also records that pahanies were verified and therefore the Tribunal was convinced that the applicant Narayanappa was a tenant to an extent of 2 acres and chikkaveerappa to an extent of 28 guntas. ( 3 ) IT is urged for the petitioner that even though he had filed an application contending that he should be registered as occupant of the entire extent of land, no enquiry was made in regard to that application and even when he appeared when Narayanappa's case was being considered, no statement of his had been recorded and the order is vitiated as not being accordance with law, ( 4 ) FROM the order of the Tribunal, it is seen that the application filed by the petitioner Chikkaveerappa was pending before it and it had yet to be considered. In the file that has been sent by the Tribunal the statement filed on 29-11-1975 by Chikkaveerappa is to be found in which he denied that Narayanappa was a tenant at all of this land and set up a claim that he himself was a tenant of the entire extent of 2 acres and 28 gunta,s. In that application reference was also made to an application made by him under S. 48a (2 ). It is,, therefore clear that the case of the petitioner Chikkaveerappa before the Tribunal was a rival claim. Section 48a (5) provides :"where an objection is filed disputing. the validity of the applicant's claim or setting up a rival claim, the Tribunal shall, after enquiry, determine, by order, the person entitled to be registered as occupant and pass orders accordingly. "as I have stated earlier, except for recording the statements of Shankar rao and Narayanappa there has been no further enquiry at all. ( 5 ) IN this Court, on behalf of both the parties, several letters said to have been written by the owners have been sought to be produced. On behalf of the petitioner certified copy of the Pahani extracts for the period 1968-69 onwards has been filed indicating that the petitioner (Chikkaveerappa) was in occupation of the entire land. ( 5 ) IN this Court, on behalf of both the parties, several letters said to have been written by the owners have been sought to be produced. On behalf of the petitioner certified copy of the Pahani extracts for the period 1968-69 onwards has been filed indicating that the petitioner (Chikkaveerappa) was in occupation of the entire land. In the papers that have been sent by the Tribunal copy of an extract from the Record of Rights for the year 1974-75 is to be found which mentions the names of both Chikkaveerappa as well as Narayanappa and there is no specification of the extent of the land in the name of either. When the Tribunal was made aware that there was a rival claim, it ought to have disposed of koth the matters together after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their mutual claims. This the Tribunal has failed to do and the proceedings are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 48a (5 ). ( 6 ) SHRI Venkataranga lyengar, learned Counsel for the third respondent urged that in the order of the Tribunal there is a statement to the effect that Chikkaveerappa had submitted that he and Narayanappa were cultivating as tenants since 1962 and therefore the order was passed on an admission made by Chikkaveerappa and there is no scope for interference with that order under Art. 227 of the Constitution. He referred to a ruling of the Supreme Court in AIR 1975 SC 1297 (1) in this behalf. It is settled law that under Art. 227 findings on questions of fact are not interfered with unless it is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record or it can be said that there is no basis at all for the conclusion. As i have pointed out earlier there is no statement of Chikkaveerappa recorded by the tribunal though the statements of Shankar Rao and Narayanappa were recorded. The application filed by the petitioner Chikkaveerappa only a few days earlier was to the effect that he was cultivating the entire extent of land in Sy. No. 56/1 and Narayanappa was never a tenant of this land. The application filed by the petitioner Chikkaveerappa only a few days earlier was to the effect that he was cultivating the entire extent of land in Sy. No. 56/1 and Narayanappa was never a tenant of this land. In the absence of any statement of Chikkaveerappa specifically recorded by the Tribuna] mere observation of the Tribunal in its order cannot be said to be conclusive so as to found a case of admission on the part of Chikkaveerappa. In this view the order is clearly vitiated. ( 7 ) AS I have stated earlier, the parties appear to be relying upon documentary evidence by way of correspondence with the owners which would have a bearing on the ultimate conclusion to be reached as to which of the parties is a tenant and actually cultivating the land. In the petition an averment has been made that there was a demand made by shankar Rao Respondent-2 for payment of a sum of Rs. 5,000. The learned counsel appearing for Shankar Rao submitted that this was not true and this denial fs recorded. In the light of the reasoning mentioned above, it is not necessary at this stage to find out whether the averment is true or false. ( 8 ) IT is clear from a perusal of the record that the Tribunal has not made an enquiry into the mat':er as is required by law and therefore the parties have been denied of a reasonable opportunity of placing the entire material before the Tribunal so as to reach a proper conclusion on the over all material that can be placed before it. I have pointed out earlier that the entries in the certified copies of Pahani Registers filed before this Court indicate that the petitioner has been cultivating the land. Whether this is true has to be verified by the Tribunal by calling the original Pahani Registers and making such enquiry as mav be deemed necessary. The order of the Tribunal being one made without due enquiry and without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to place the entire materials on record and vir'ually, ignoring his application, is clearly vitiated and must be set aside. The order of the Tribunal being one made without due enquiry and without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to place the entire materials on record and vir'ually, ignoring his application, is clearly vitiated and must be set aside. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the order of the Tribunal is set aside with a direction that the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter afresh along with the application filed by the petitioner Chikkaveerappa (sent by him by registered post on 13-11-1975) in accordance with law and after affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .