( 1 ) THIS writ petition,, arising under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Thirthahalli, made in LRF (7) 127/74-75, dt. 29-11-1975, granting occupancy right in respect of 5 acres 30 guntas of agricultural land in S. No. 61 of Shankarapura village of Thirthahalli Taluk. The total area of S. No. 61 is six acres and odd. But, in this writ, petition, the dispute is only with regard to 1 acre 34 guntas of land in S. No. 61. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the landholder. The second respondent Manjanaika filed an application before the Tribunal claiming that he is a tenant of the land measuring 5 acres 30 guntas in S. No. 61. The petitioner contested the claim of the second respondent so far as 1 acre 34 guntas of land is concerned. The Tribunal overuled that contention and granted occupancy right in favour of second respondent over an area of 5 acres 30 guntas. ( 3 ) THE sole ground urged by Sri B. P. Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition, is that the order of the Tribunal in so far as the land in dispute referred to above is concerned, is void. Both parties have adduced enormous oral and documentary evidence. Inter-alia, the parties have produced copies of pahanis. It is an undisputed fact that the pahanis for the years immediately prior to 1-3-1974 i. e. , for the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, show that the petitioner-land-holder was personally cultivating 1 acre 31 guntas of thari and 3 guntas of bagayath land out of S. No. 61 and that the second respondent Manjanaika was cultivating only 4 acres of thari. There is a statutory presumption arising under Sec. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act that the entries in the Record of Rights are correct unless the same are shown to be incorrect. The entries in the Record of Rights for the years immediately prior to 1-3-1974 are important and valuable evidence in deciding the question whether a landholder is personally cultivating the land or it is a tenanted land, and if it ;s a tenanted land, who is the tenant who was personally cultivating the land. The entries in the Record of Rights for the years immediately prior to 1-3-1974 are important and valuable evidence in deciding the question whether a landholder is personally cultivating the land or it is a tenanted land, and if it ;s a tenanted land, who is the tenant who was personally cultivating the land. ( 4 ) IT is open to the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the entries in the Record, of Rights during the years immediately prior to 1-3-1974 are incorrect for valid reasons. The Tribunal rejected the entries in the Record of Rights for the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 on the ground that the pahani records relating to the years 1957-58 disclose that the petitioner's father's name, who was then alive, was not shown as landholder in personal cultivation, whereas the name of the second respondent was shown as the person in cultivation. ( 5 ) THE argument of Sri Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that his client had no opportunity of rebutting the entries in the pahanis of the years 1957-58, relied on by the Tribunal against him and they were not put to his client either during his evidence or subsequently before the case was concluded. A specific ground to this effect has been taken in ground No. 4 of the writ petition. There is nothing in the record of the Tribunal to show that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of meeting this point which was against him. If the Tribunal considered that they should look to the entries in pahanis or the Record of Rights for the earlier years, they should have reopened the case and posted the same for hearing and afforded a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to meet that case which is against him. After the enquiry was concluded and before order was passed, if the Tribunal sends for some revenue records, scrutinises the same and relies on such inference it draws therefrom for the purpose of arriving at its decision, such a procedure amounts to a clear violation of the rules of Natural Justice. The learned high Court Govt Advocate, Sri Chandrakantha Raj Urs,- also submitted that the records of the case do not show that any copies of the pahanis or the Record of Rights for the years prior to 1961-62 were placed in the records. The learned high Court Govt Advocate, Sri Chandrakantha Raj Urs,- also submitted that the records of the case do not show that any copies of the pahanis or the Record of Rights for the years prior to 1961-62 were placed in the records. Although the Land Tribunals are not bound to follow all the technicalities of the rules or procedure of Civil Courts, the fundamental rules they have to observe are the rules of Natural Justice, and rules of natural Justice require that any material which a Tribunal proposes to rely on or intends to use, should be put to the party who will be prejudiced by the same. Failure to do so, is a violation of the rules of Natural justice. Since the violation of the rules of Natural Justice relates to an important piece of evidence, which is relevant for the purpose of rendering decision, the order of the Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand uncorrected. The decision of the Tribunal affects valuable property rights of the parties and, therefore, substantial injustice has resulted as a result of the contravention of the rule of Natural Justice by the Tribunal. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, I allow this writ petition, quash the impugned order so far as it relates to the disputed extent of 1 acre 34 guntas of land. With respect to the remaining extent, the order conferring occupancy right on the second respondent stands. The matter is remitted to this limited extent to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh after affording both the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard. The parties are at liberty to lead further evidence. Ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .