( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings iniated before the Land Tribunal Bijapur Taluka (respondent No. 1) on an application made by Bheemappa Yallappa byauagi (responaeni No. 2) under S. 40 of the Karnataa Land Reforms act, 1961 hereinmatter called "the Act" claiming registration of occupancy in respect of a land comprised in RS. No. 215/2 measuring 16 acres and 12 guntas in Shiddapur village of Bijapur Taluka. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the land-holder. On the application of the second respondent claiming registration of occupancy, the Tribunal issued notice to tne peitioner. The petitioner opposed the application on the ground that the land in dispute was not a tenanted land immediately prior to 1st march 1974, which is the relevant date for determination of a dispute under S. 45 of the Act. The petitioner produced before the Tribunal certined extracts of the Record of Rights and other documents, tne Tribunal examined the parties and also some witnesses on both sides and made an oraer on 18-2-1976 holding that the second respondent (applicant) is a tenant of the disputed land for the past i5 years and that he is entitled to the grant of registraion occupancy. Aggrieved by tne said order, the land-holder has preferred this writ petition. ( 3 ) IT was urged by Sri V. S. Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order of the Tribunal is not a speaking order and that the Tribunal has failed to give reasons for ignoring the presumption of correctness of the entries made in the Record of Rights and therefore, the order is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the second respondent produced a document said to be a 'lavani Kararu'. The Tribunal noted that the second respondent's name had been entered in the Record of Rights for the agricultural year 1967-68. It also noted the fact that the second respondent had produced some receipts evidencing the sale of plantains and that he had also produced what is styled as 'lavani K. araru'. This is what the Tribunal has stated: ( 5 ) WHAT is slated above is merely the conclusion of the Tribunal. It also noted the fact that the second respondent had produced some receipts evidencing the sale of plantains and that he had also produced what is styled as 'lavani K. araru'. This is what the Tribunal has stated: ( 5 ) WHAT is slated above is merely the conclusion of the Tribunal. It does not discuss the evidence on record, the effect of the presumption of law arising under S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, with regard to ths entries in the Record of Rights and how that presumption has been rebutted, and how the 'lavani Kararu' relied upon by the second respondent is sufficient to rebut the entries in the Record of Rights. This court has repeatedly laid down that the Land Tribunal, which adjudicates upon the right to property of the citizens, has to make a speaking order, that what is required is not the subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal that the applicant before it is a tenant or not, and that since it is open to scrutiny by this Court, it must give reasons for its conclusions. The impugned order also does not state that the disputed land was a tenanted land immediately prior to 1st March, 1974, which is a condition necessary to grant occupancy right in respect of such land. S. 44 of the Act states that all lands held by or in the possession of tenants immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. other than lands held by them under leases permitted under S. 5, shall, with effect on and from the said date, land transferred to and vest in the State Govt. S. 45 entitles a tenant as defined in the Act who was personally cultivating the land which has vested in the btate Govt under S. 44 to obtain registration of occupancy. The question whether the land vested in the State Govt and the claim of the tenant for registration of occupancy are related questions. Since the two questions are related, it is necessary for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the question whether the land has vested in the State Govt under S. 44. The question whether the land vested in the State Govt and the claim of the tenant for registration of occupancy are related questions. Since the two questions are related, it is necessary for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the question whether the land has vested in the State Govt under S. 44. Rule 19 of the rules framed under the Act provides that on receipt of an application by a person claiming to be a tenant, the Tahsildar shall verify the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to 'the entries made in the record of Rights after getting the concerned Registers himself and also note the same on the application. Such verification is required to be made by the Tahsildar before the Tribunal issues notice to the landholder. When the landholder appears before the Tribunal in response to the notice issued to him, the application before the Tribunal will contain a note whether the entries in the Record of Rights show that the land was a tenanted land immediately prior to the first day of March 1974; if the entries in the record of Rights do not show that the land in question was a tenanted land immediately prior to the 1st March, 1974, the burden is on the person claiming to be a tenant to show that the entries in the Record of Rights are incorrect and has to lead evidence to rebut the presumption in regard to the correctness of entries arising by virtue of S. 133 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964; if the evidence adduced by the applicant is insufficient to rebut the presumption arising under S. 133, the application has to be rejected and it has to be held that the land has not vested in the State govt under S. 44 of the Land Reforms Act; if the presumption arising under S. 133 is rebutted, then the dispute as between the parties has to be decided on the basis of the evidence on record. The Tribunal has to give sufficient and adequate reasons to show how the presumption arising from the entries in the Record of Rights has been rebutted in any particular case. The Tribunal has to give sufficient and adequate reasons to show how the presumption arising from the entries in the Record of Rights has been rebutted in any particular case. In the instant case, there is absolutely no discussion in the order of the tribunal in regard to the presumption of law arising out of the entries in the Record of nights with ieference to the land in question for the relevant period, viz. , 1973-74, which, admittedly, is in favour of the landholder. In my opinion, the order oi' the Tribunal not being a speaking order cannot be allowed to stand. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, I allow this writ petition, quash the impugned order dated 18-2-1076. and remit the matter to the Tribunal for disposal afresh, after affording the parties a fair Opportunity of being heard, in the light of this order. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .