( 1 ) THE orders dated 8-6-1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Channarayapatna, in Case No. LRA. 536/74-75 and Case No. LRA. 724/76-77, are sought to be quashed. ( 2 ) BY the impugned orders, copies of which are at Exhibits-A and b, the Tribunal has dismissed the claims of the petitioner on the ground that neither he nor the owners, viz. , respondents 4 and 3 respectively, were present. ( 3 ) SRI K. Chandrasekhar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the Tribunal had no power to dismiss the claims for default and, therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law. ( 4 ) SRI C. V. Guruve Gowda, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the owners, argued that in view of Sec. 115 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1961, the Tribunal had the powers of the Court of small Causes and hence it could dismiss the cases for default of the petitioner and by the very provision, the Tribunal was required to follow the procedure prescribed for conduct of cases by a Court of Small Causes. ( 5 ) SEC. 48a (4) and (5) of the Act lay down the procedure to be followed by a Tribunal in holding enquiries. By Section 48a (4), the tribunal is required to make such verification as it considers necessary and proceed to orders in cases where no objections to the claim of a person under Sec. 48a, have been filed. Sec. 48a (5) prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal when objections are filed. ( 6 ) THE facts already narrated show that the owners were absent and they had not filed any statement of objections. Therefore, the procedure prescribed by Sec. 48a (4) of the Act ought to have been applied by the Tribunal. Sec. 115 of the Act lays down that, as far as possible, the tribunal shall have the powers of a Court of Small Causes and shall follow the procedure of a Court of Small Causes. When there is a specific provision, viz, Sec. 48a (4), in the Act in regard to the power and procedure of the Tribunal, Sec. 115 of the Act would be inapplicable. Therefore, the contention of Shri K. Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is to be accepted. When there is a specific provision, viz, Sec. 48a (4), in the Act in regard to the power and procedure of the Tribunal, Sec. 115 of the Act would be inapplicable. Therefore, the contention of Shri K. Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is to be accepted. ( 7 ) IN the result, the rule is made absolute and the impugned orders are quashed. The Tribunal is directed to hold a fresh enquiry into the claim of the petitioner and dispose of the same according to law. No costs. --- *** --- .