( 1 ) THE order under challenge in this writ petition reads thus:"25-2-1976. Case called. Applicant present and states that he is cultivating the land from the time of his grand-father and has not paid any gutta, to any one. Tahsildar to take action for recovery of rent as per K. L. R. F Act. Enquiry adjourned sine die. " ( 2 ) THE above order is made by respondent-1, Land Tribunal, Malavalli in the course of an enquiry held by it on an application made by the petitioner under S. 48-A (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, to be referred to as the Act, seeking grant of registration of occupancy in respect of 4 acres and 30 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 158 of Ankanhalli in malavalli Taluk. Sri C. N. Kamath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the said order of the Tribunal contending that the Land Tribunal enquiring into an application made before it under Ss. 48-A of the Act has not only acted wholly without jurisdiction in directing the Tahsildar to take action against the petitioner for recovery of rent, but also has failed to discharge the statutory duty imposed upon it by S. 48-A of the Act in the matter of enquiring into and deciding the application made to it under ss. 48-A (l) of the Act by adjourning the enquiry sine die. As an understanding of the scope and ambit of the relevant provisions contained in S. 48a of the Act is necessary for a properappreciation of the validity of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i propose to deal with the contentions only after briefly setting out the scope and ambit of the said provision. ( 3 ) A person who is entitled to be registered as an occupant under S. 45 of the Act can make an application before the Land Tribunal as provided for in S. 48-A (l) of the Act and seek registration of occupancy. ( 3 ) A person who is entitled to be registered as an occupant under S. 45 of the Act can make an application before the Land Tribunal as provided for in S. 48-A (l) of the Act and seek registration of occupancy. When, such an application is made, the Tribunal has to call upon the landlord and other persons who may be interested in the land by means of notices not only published in the village where the land is situate, but also issued to person named in the application, with a view to enable them to appear before the tribunal on the date fixed for hearing of the application and to have their say in respect of the claim made in the application as provided for in sub-sec. (2) of S. 48-A. Enquiry has to be proceeded with by the Tribunal on such application and the claim made in the application hap to be either granted or rejected by the Tribunal by means of an order to be made by it as provided for in sub-secs. (4) to (5a) of S. 48-A. Thus, the relevant provisions of S. 48-A not only empower the Tribunal to consider the validity of of the claim under S. 45 of the Act made by any person, but also impose a statutory duty on the Tribunal to determine finally as to whether such claim has to be granted or rejected. ( 4 ) HENCE, if the Tribunal, while enquiring into an application made before it under S. 48-A of the Act issues a direction to the Tahsildar to collect arrears of rent in respect of the land for which claim is made, such a, direction would fall clearly outside the scope of enquiry envisaged under S. 48-A and as such, the direction has to be construed as one given by the Tribunal without jurisdiction. So also, if the Tribunal adjourns the enquiry under S. 48-A 'sine die', that is without fixing a day on which further enquiry has to be held with a view to finally determine the claim it would be failing in its duty impqsed under S. 48-A of the Act in the matter of enquiring into the claim and determining it finally. When such a direction is issued by the tribunal, it has to be construed as a direction issued in breach of a statutory duty imposed upon it. When such a direction is issued by the tribunal, it has to be construed as a direction issued in breach of a statutory duty imposed upon it. ( 5 ) IN the said view of the matter the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced assailing the validity of the order challenged in this writ petition deserve to be accepted and they are accordingly accepted. ( 6 ) AS a result, the order under challenge is quashed and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim of the petitioner made under S. 48-A of the act in the light of this order and in accordance with law after affording the interested parties adequate opportunity of adducing evidence and of being heard. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances of the case, no order is made as regards costs. --- *** --- .