( 1 ) THESE cases provide a painful and a glaring example as to how a benevolent legislation enacted fr ensuring the proper distribution of material resources of, the community and to help the economic advancement of the weaker sections of the. society in implementation of the objects enshrined in Art. 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution stands sabotaged to achieve selfish ends at the hands of the very persons who afe entrusted with the responsibility and duty of its enforcement, by utilising the very provisions incorporated for ensuring its implementation. ( 2 ) THE Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter balled 'the act') has been enacted by the State Legislature with the object of bringing about-reforms in agrarian relationship. In the Act, which was erfacted in the year 1961 and also given effect to with effect from 2-10-1965, certain revolutionary changes, were brought about by the Amending Act 1 of 197 which were. given effect from 1-3-1974. ( 3 ) SEC. 44 of the Act provides for the vesting of all lands held on lease as on 1st March 1974, except those exempted under Sec. 5 of the Act, namely, the tenancies created by a soldier or a seaman, in the State Government. Sec. 45 of the Act provides for conferment of ownership on the tenants of the lands belonging to others, which are under their lawful cultivation on the said date. Sec. 48 of the Act authorises the constitution of the Land Tribunals which are charged with the responsibility of adjudicating the claims and enforcing the important provisions of the Act. Sec. 48a of the Act prescribes the procedure m dealing with the applications made by persons lawfully cultivating the lands of another as tenants as on 1-3-1974, claiming occupancy rights -. Sec. 5 of the Act prohibits creation of new leases after the commencement of the Act. Sec. 58 of the Act provides that the lands leased in contravention of the Act should be forfeited and should be disposed of as provided in Sec. 77 of the Act. Secs. 59 and 60 of the Act provide that where the right of tenant to be registered as an. occupant becomes ineffective for any reason or if tenants fails to cultivat the land personally, such land also should be disposed of in accordance with Sec. 77 of the Act. Secs. 59 and 60 of the Act provide that where the right of tenant to be registered as an. occupant becomes ineffective for any reason or if tenants fails to cultivat the land personally, such land also should be disposed of in accordance with Sec. 77 of the Act. ( 4 ) CHAPTER IV of the Act prescribes the ceiling on lamd holdings. Sec. 66 of the Act provides that every person holding lands in excess of ceiling limit prescribed is required to file a declaration giving particulars or the lands held by him. The Tahsildar, earlier to the amendment of Sec 67 by Amending Act 44 of 1976, and thereafter the land Tribunal has to determine the lands which such persons are entitled to retain and the lands which he has to surrender to the State Government. The lands so surrendered stand vested in the State Govt under Sec. 68 of the Act. ( 5 ) SEC. 76 authorises the Tahsildar to take possession of the lands which stand vested in the State Govt under the provision referred to above sec. 77 of the Act is the most important provision which is relevant for this case which prescribes the procedure for the disposal of the lands vested in the State Govt, which reads as follows :" 77. Dispose of surplus land. (1) Surplus land vesting in the state Govt under this Act, land directed to be disposed of under sub- sec (3) of Sec. 45, Sec. 58, Sec. 60, land vesting in the State Govt under sec. 79a, Sec. 79b or under any other provision of this Act shall, subject to reservation of fifty per cent thereof for grant to persons belonging to the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes and subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf, may be granted by the. Tribunal to the following persons to the extent adn in the manner as may be prescribed : (i) Dispossessed tenants who are not registered as occupants; (ii) Displaced tenants having no land; (iii) Landless agriculural labourers; (iv) Landless person? and ex-Military personnel whose gross annual income does not exceed rupees two thousand; (v) Released bonded labourers; (vi) Other persons residing in villages m the same Panchayat and whose gross annual income does not exceed rupees two thousand. Explanation. and ex-Military personnel whose gross annual income does not exceed rupees two thousand; (v) Released bonded labourers; (vi) Other persons residing in villages m the same Panchayat and whose gross annual income does not exceed rupees two thousand. Explanation. (1) 'dispossessed' tenant means a person who not being member of the family Of the owner was cultivating lands personally and was dispossessed between 10th September 1957 and 24th january 1971 and who is not registered as an occupatnt under the provisions of this Act. Explanation. (2) 'displaced tenant' means a person who has been deprived of agricultural land on which he was a tenant, on account of (i) acquisition of such land under the Land Acquisition Act; or (ii) resumption of such land by a soldier or a seaman for personal cultivation. (2) The lands reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled castes and Secheduled Tribes shall be granted m accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec (1) the State govt may, if it considers that any land vesting in it is required for any public purpose, reserve such lamd for such purpose. " ( 6 ) AS can be seen from the aforesaid provisions, the Act aims to achieve the following important objects : (i) Abolition of absentee landlordism and conferment of ownership on the actual tillers of the soil. (ii) Fixation Of maximum ceiling on the right to own agricultural lands and taking over the excess by the State Government. (iii) Distribution of the excess lands vested in the State Govt to people belonging to weaker sections of the society such as persons belonging to schedule caste and tribes, and landless agricultural laburers etc. ( 7 ) AS stated earlier the Land Tribunal constituted under Sec-48 of hte Act is entrusted with the duty and responsibility of determining the lights of tenants for occupancy right. This power includes the power to reject the claim of any person for occupancy right if on enquiry it is found that such claim is not genuine. ( 7 ) AS stated earlier the Land Tribunal constituted under Sec-48 of hte Act is entrusted with the duty and responsibility of determining the lights of tenants for occupancy right. This power includes the power to reject the claim of any person for occupancy right if on enquiry it is found that such claim is not genuine. In cases where the claim of persons for occupancy right on the ground of being tenant of such lands as on 1-3-14, are found to be not true and the same are rejected, the lands remain with the owners and such owners if they own land in excess of ceiling limit, have no alternative than to surrender the lands in excess of the ceiling limit to the State Govt and the lands so vested in the State Govt become available for distribution in accordance with Sec. 77 of the Act. ( 8 ) THE State Govt in exercise of its powers has constituted Land tiibunal for every Taluk. Respondent-1 in each of these writ petitions is one such Land Tribunal constituted for Raibag Taluk in Belgaum Dist. By six separate orders passed by that Land Tribunal on 27-12-75, the Land tiibunal has conferred occupancy right on the lands to six persons, particulars of lands which are situated in Chincholi village are as follows : * * * * * the total extent of land in respect of which the occupancy right was sought to be conferred on the six persons by the raid orders corner to 151 acres and 9 guntes. The said lands belong to one Sri Subba Rao Kachoji dt sai the 6th respondent in all the writ petitions and his wife -Rama Bai the 7th respondent in WPs. 1599, 1609 and 1601 of 1977, who were the owners of extensive area of agricultural lands including the above lands. According to the impugned orders, no objections were filed by the land owners to the claims of the aforesaid six persons and therefore the Land tribunal parsed six separate orders conferring occupancy right as claimed by them on the basis that there were no objections. ( 9 ) THESE six writ petition? have been presented by nine petitioners who were not parties before the Land Tribunal praying for the issue of writ of certiorari quashing the six orders passed by the Land Tribunal. ( 9 ) THESE six writ petition? have been presented by nine petitioners who were not parties before the Land Tribunal praying for the issue of writ of certiorari quashing the six orders passed by the Land Tribunal. They trace their locus-standi to present these writ petitions to Sec. 77 of the Act. ( 10 ) THE case of the petitioners is that all the 'petitioners are land less agricultural labourers residing in Chinchali village in Raibag Taluk and further Petr-2 belongs to the scheduled caste and therefore they are entitled to claim the grant of surplus lands which stand vested in, the State govt in view of the preference given to them under Sec. 77 of the Act. They allege that but for the misuse of their position by respondents 3 and 4, as members of the Land Tribunal, with the connivance of respondent-6 c. K. Sharma, IAS, who was then Asst Commr and Chairman, of the Land tribunal, for their own benefit, the L. T. should have rejected the claims of the last of the respondents in each of the petitions and consequenty, respondents 6 and 7 who have already retained owneiship of the maximum extent of lands permissible under the Act, would have had no other alternative than to surrender these 151 acres and 19 guntas of very fertile lands to the State Government and would have become Available for distribution to the class of persons to which the petitioners, belong, under Sec. 77 Of the act. The material facts stated and the averment made in these writ petitions in support of the aforesaid allegations made by the petitioners may be summarised as follows : ( 11 ) RESPONDENT-6 is the Desai of Chinchali village and he was owning aoout 1000 acres of land. The lands in respect of which occupancy right has been granted are abutting the right bank of Krishna river and have been cultivated by lift-irrigation system by lfting the water from Krishna river. They are very fertile and valuable. The lands were letered by respondent 6 to Ugar Sugar works Ltd. , Ugar Khurd under registered lease deed dated 30th April 1954 for a period of 20 years i. e. , from 1st April 1953 to 31st March 1973. The sugar) factory delivered back the possession of the lands to respondant-6 after the termination of the lease period. The lands were letered by respondent 6 to Ugar Sugar works Ltd. , Ugar Khurd under registered lease deed dated 30th April 1954 for a period of 20 years i. e. , from 1st April 1953 to 31st March 1973. The sugar) factory delivered back the possession of the lands to respondant-6 after the termination of the lease period. A joint 'wardi' (repeat) WES also given by the sugar factory and respondent-6 to that effect to the Tal^thi on 31st July 1973. The entries in the Record of rights alao disclose that Ugar Sugar Works was the tenant of these lands right from 1953 to 1973. During 1974 these lands were cultivated by the owners personally. The further allegation is that Respts-3 and 4 who were the Members of the Land Tribunal, in connivance with the Chairman of the land Tribunal and in collusion with respondent-6 got the lands for themselves in the name of the six applicants aforesaid, who are either close relatives or friends of respondents 3 and 4 and respondent-6 was made to accept the claims of occupancy right of the six applicants, they having paid him one-fourth the value of the lands in question and that the lands having been got registered in the names of the six applicants are in the actual possession and enjoyment of raspondent-3. In proof of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioners have placed the following facts : (i) Respodent-3 Vasanta Rao Lakhagouda Patil, who was the member of the Land Tribunal Raibag Taluk, is the father of respondent-4 pratap, who was also e'nother Member of the Land Tribunal. (ii)- Respondent-7 in WP. 1596 of 1977 Shankara Reo Krishanji madane in whose favour occupancy right for 23 acres and 8 guntas of land has been granted is the husband of respondent-3's wife's sister. (iii) Respondent-7 in WP. 1597 of 1977 Dattatreya Babu Rao Narott, in whose favour occupancy right in respect of 24 acres and 20 gurntas has been granted is the brother-in-law of respondent-3, i. e. , his wife's brother. He is a wholesale cloth merchant at Sholapur in the State of Maharashtra, but he has falsely given his residence as Bekkeri, (iv) Respondent-7 in WP. 1597 of 1977 Dattatreya Babu Rao Narott, in whose favour occupancy right in respect of 24 acres and 20 gurntas has been granted is the brother-in-law of respondent-3, i. e. , his wife's brother. He is a wholesale cloth merchant at Sholapur in the State of Maharashtra, but he has falsely given his residence as Bekkeri, (iv) Respondent-7 in WP. 1598 of 1977 Gnyaneswar Baburao Narote in whose favour occupancy right in respect of 25 acres and 3 guntas of land has been granted is another brother-in-law of respondents-3 i. e. the younger brother of respondent-7 m WP. 1597 of 1977. He is a student studying in the college of Sholapur. He is aged only 21 years. (v) Respondent-8 in WP. 1599 of 1977 Baagsu Siddappa Hidkal is a distant relative of respondents 3 and 4 He is residing at Bykad and attending to agricultural operations of respondents 3 and 4 27 acres and 14 guntas of land have been got registered in his name (vi) Respondent-8 in WP. 1600 77 Balawant Babu Birnale in whose fivour occupancy right in respect of 24 acres a/id 10 guntas of land has been granted is a resident Of Ankalakoppa, which is far away from these lands in the State of Maharashtra and he himself is owning large extent of lands in Maharashtra. He is a Member of Setkari Sahakara Karkhane ltd. , Sangli. He is a friend of respondent-3. (viii) Respondent-8 m WP. 1601 of 1977 Kishor Kalyanji Shah, in whose favour occupancy right in respect of 23 acres and 17 guntas of land has been granted under the order of the Land Tribunal dated 27-12-1977 (Ext. H) is a resident at NO. 310 "srinivas" 12th Road, Chembur, Bombay. He was a class-mate of respondent-4 when they were studying at Panchngani. They were fast friends. He is only aged 25 years and a businessman at Bombay. (viii) All the six applicants in Form No. 7 aforesaid have lent their names for the benefit of respondents 3 and 4 either on account of close relationship or friendship and that the possession of all the above Iands have been actually secured by respondents 3 and 4 and they are cultivating the lands, and none of the grantees had ever cultivated the lands and they are not cultivating the lands. (ix) The entries in the record of rights and mutations have been manipulated to support the claim Of the six applicants. ( 12 ) THE petitioners have produced the following documents in support of their allegations : (i) Extobit-J: Registered lease deed dated 30th April 1954 entered into between respondent-6 and Ugar Sugar Works leasing the Inads in question to Ugar Sugar Works for a period of 20 years from 1-4-1953 to 31-3-1973 (ii) Exhibit-K: Joint Wardi dated 31-7-1973 given by Ugar Sugar works and respondent-6 to the Thalathi of Chinehali, Raibag Taluk requesting to substitute the name of respondent-6 in the place of Ugar sugar Works, in view of the expiry of the lease in respect of the lands which are subject matter of these proceedings. (iii) (a) Exhibits L and M : Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 6 acres and 24 guntas of land in Sy. No. 309 which shows Ugar sugar Works as the tenant of the aforementioned land from 1959-60 to 1972-73 and showing that the name of respondent-7 in WP. 1596 of 1977 shankara Rao Krishnoji Madane has been inserted in pencil for the year 1964-65 and showing his name for 1973-74. (b) Exhibits N and O : Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 4 acres 32 guntas of land ini Sy. NO. 310, with similar insertion and entries as above in favour of respondent-7 in WP 1596 of 1977. (c) Exhibit-P: Certified copy of record of rights m, respect of 11 acres and 32 guntas of land in Sy. No. 311, with similar insertion and entries as above in favour of respondent-7 in WP. NO. 1597 of 1977, (iv) (a) Exhibit-Q: Certified copy of record Of rights in respect of 12 acres and 8 guntas of land in Sy. No. 287 which shows Ugar Sugar Works as the tenant of the said lands from 1959-60 to 1964-65 and a pencil entry of the name of respondent-7 in WP. 597 7. 7 in the tenant's column for 1964-65 only. (b) Exhibits-R and S: Certified copies of record of rights showing the name of Ugar Sugar Works as tenant of 12 acres and 12 guntas of land in sy. No. 288 from 1959-60 to 1972-73 and a pencil entry showing the name of Dattatreya Babu Rao Narote as tenant for the year 1963-64 and for the year 1973-74. (b) Exhibits-R and S: Certified copies of record of rights showing the name of Ugar Sugar Works as tenant of 12 acres and 12 guntas of land in sy. No. 288 from 1959-60 to 1972-73 and a pencil entry showing the name of Dattatreya Babu Rao Narote as tenant for the year 1963-64 and for the year 1973-74. (v) Exhibits-T and U : Certified copies of record of rights showing the name of Ugar Sugar Works as tenant of 25 acres and 3 guntas of land in Sy. No. 297, for the years 1959-60 up to 1973-74 and showing an insertion in favour of Gnyaneshwar Babu Rao Narote respondent-7 in WP. 1598|77 for the year 1963-64, and an entry in his favour for the year 1973-74. (vi) (a) Exhibits-V and W: Certified copies of record of rights showing the name of ugar Sugar Works as tenant of 3 acres and 14 guntas of land in Sy. No. 278|3|2 for the years 1959-60 to 1972-73, and an insertion entry in favour of Bagasu Siddappa-Nidikal respondent-8 in, WP. 1599 77 for the years 1964-95 and 1965-66 and an entry in his favour for the year 1973-74. (b) Exhibits-X and Y: Certified copies of record of rights regarding 4 acres and 13 guntas of land in Sy. No. 278|4|3 with similar insertion and entries as in Exhibits X and Y, (c) Exhibits-X and Z-2: Certified copies of record of rights regarding 3 acres and 33 guntas of land in Sy. NO. 278 5 3 with similar insertion and entries as in Exhibits X and Y. (d) Exhibit-Z-2 : Certified copy of record of rights regarding 35 guntas of land in Sy. No. 279a with similar insertion and entries as Exts. W and X. (e) Exhibits Z-3 and Z-4: Certified copies of record of rights in respect Of 7 acres and 19 guntas of land in Sy. No. 279 B|1 showing similar entries and insertion as in Exhibits X and Y. (f) Exhibits-Z-5 and Z-6: Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 7 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 279 B|2 showing similar entries and insertion as in Exhibits X and Y. (vii) (a) Exhibits Z-7 and Z-8: Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 1 acre and 34 guntas of land in Sy. NO. No. 279 B|2 showing similar entries and insertion as in Exhibits X and Y. (vii) (a) Exhibits Z-7 and Z-8: Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 1 acre and 34 guntas of land in Sy. NO. 266 showing Ugar sugar Works as tenant for the years 1959-60 to 1972-73 and an insertion in favour of Balawant Bhavu Birnale respondent-8 in WP. 1600|77 for the year 1964-65 and an entry in his favour for 1973-74. (b) Exhibits Z-9 and Z-10 : Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 2 acres and 22 guntas of land in Sy. No. 267 shewing similar entries and insertion as in Exhibits Z-7 and Z-8. (c) Exhibits Z-11 and Z-12 : Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 3 apres and 19 guntas of land in Sy. No. 286 showing similar entries and insertion as in Exhibits Z-7 and Z-8. (d) Exhibits Z-13 and Z-14 : Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 3 acres and 27 guntas of land in Sy. No. 306 with entries and insertion as in Exhibits Z-7 and Z-8. (e) Exhibits Z-15 and Z-16: Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 4 acres and 4 guntas of land in Sy. NO. 307 with entries and insertion as in Exhibits Z-7 and Z-8. (f) Exhibits Z-17 and Z-18 : Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 12 acres and 11 guntas of land in Sy. No. 308 with entries and insertion as in Exts. Z-7 and Z-8. (viii) (a) Exhibits Z-20 and Z-21 : Certified copies of record of rights showing the name of Ugar Sugar Works as tenants of 5 acres and 37 guntas of land in Sy. No. 277|1|1 for the year 1959-60 to 1972-73 and an insertion showing the name of Kishore Kalyanji Shah respondent-8 in WP. 1601177 for the year 1964-65 and 1965-66 and an entry in his favour for the year 1973-74. (b) Exhibits Z-22 and Z-23: Certified copies of record of rights in respect of 3 acres and 12 guntas of lands in Sy. No. 277]2|1 showing similar insertion and entries as in Exhibits Z-20 and Z-21. (c) Exhibits Z-24 and Z-25: Certified copies of record of rights in respect Of 14 acres and 8 Juntas of land in Sy. No. 298 showing similar insertion and entries as in Exhibits Z-20 and Z-21. No. 277]2|1 showing similar insertion and entries as in Exhibits Z-20 and Z-21. (c) Exhibits Z-24 and Z-25: Certified copies of record of rights in respect Of 14 acres and 8 Juntas of land in Sy. No. 298 showing similar insertion and entries as in Exhibits Z-20 and Z-21. (ix) Exhibit Z-27: Certified copy of mutation entries No. 4611 daed 2-12-73 in accordance with the joint wardi given by Ugar Sugar Works and respondent-6, to enter the name of latter substituting the name of Ugar sugar Works as tenants of all the lands in question on the termination of the 20 years' lease in their favour. (x) Exhibit Z-26: Letter d| 26|27-3-74 from Ugar Sugar Works evidencing the sale of electrical installation by Ugar Sugar Works in favour of respondent-6 for a sum of Rs. 26,686. (xi) Exhibit Z-30: Certified copy of registered sale deed d| 19th Octr, 1974 in respect of sale of building electric Motor, switch board, pipe line and allied things situated on Sy. NO. 308 of Chinicholi village (which is one of the items of land in, respect of which occupancy right is conferred on respondent-8 in WP. 1600|77) in favour of respondents-3 and 4 and three others viz, Vivekanand and Amarsingh sons of respondent-3 and Smt. Pratibha daughter of respondent-3 for a sum of Rs. ,40,000 by respondent 6. (xii) Exhibit Z-31: Certified copy of mutation entry No. 2948 dated 19-10-64 showing the names of the six respondents in whose favour occupancy right has been grafted under the six impugned orders as tenants of the lands in question on the basis of joint wardi and another entry bearing no. 2948 d| 10-9-63 in respect of some other lands to show that both having regard to the duplicate number and date to show the aforesaid entry is a subsequent interpolation. (xiii) Exhibit Z-32: A bill for Rs. 6066-00 by Ugar Sugar Works, towards water service charge drawn in the name of respondent-6 to show that the lands in question were under self cultivation of respondent-6 and he had grown wheat and maize on the lands. (xiv) Exhibits Z-33 to Z-38: Endorsements issued by the Secretary of the Land Tribunal to the petitioners informing them that statement of landlords (respondent-6) and statement of tenants in, whose favour occupancy right has been conferred under the impugned orders have not been recorded. (xiv) Exhibits Z-33 to Z-38: Endorsements issued by the Secretary of the Land Tribunal to the petitioners informing them that statement of landlords (respondent-6) and statement of tenants in, whose favour occupancy right has been conferred under the impugned orders have not been recorded. (xv) Exhibit Z-45: Certified copy of the declaration filed by respondent-6 under sec. 66 of the Land Reforms Act d| 17-11-69 showing that the latnds in question have been leased to Ugar Sugar Works. ( 13 ) ON the basis Of the above documents, the petitioner's case is that the lands in question were leased by Kespt-6 in favour of Ugar Sugar Works till 1-4-1973 and thereafter they were under his self-cultivation. Therefore the Land Tribunal should have looked into the record of rights and mutation and should have enquired into the truth of the claims of last of the respondents in each of these writ petitions. It a proper enquiry as required under sec. 48-A of the Act read with Rules 17 and 19 of the Rules was held, (the land Tribunal had no other alternative than to reject their claim. Haying regard to the facts that responotent-6 was holding large extent of lands, these lands would have been surrendered to and vested in the State Government. The vesting of these lands in the State Government and consequential distribution of these lands in favour of persons belonging to weaker sections of the society as prescribed under Sec. 77 of the Act, to which category the petitioners belong has been defeated by the fraud, played by respondents 3 and 4 who are father and son, respectively, and also members of the same land Tribunal and, that the Chairman of the Tribunal has also given his helping hand in achieving the said illegal design. ( 14 ) INSPITE of the serious allegations levelled against the Land Tribunal-including its chairman, which according to the petitioner preventea the vesting of lands in the State Government surprisingly the State government and the Land Tribunal have not filed their returns, and have chosen to remain exparte. Sri. K. A. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, also pointed out that respondent-3, who was the member of the Land Tribunal, later became the Minister for Social Welfare. Sri. K. A. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, also pointed out that respondent-3, who was the member of the Land Tribunal, later became the Minister for Social Welfare. I asked Sri V. C. Brarhmarayappa, learned High Court Govt Pleader, who was present in the Court when the above cases were taken up, as to whether he has got any submission to make in these cases and he replied that the Govt Advocate has no instructions to appear in these cases. The Executive is in duty bound to implement the provisions of the law enacted by the Legislature. The petitioners are right in stating in, the petitions that they expected the State Government itself would approach this court for getting the impugned, orders quashed. But far from taking any such positive action, the State Government has chosen to remain ex-parte and has thereby become a silent spectator when such a blatant abuse of power by the Land Tribunal is alleged. Thus the serious allegations made against the Land Tribunal and its Chairman, an officer of the State Govt. , remain uncontroverted by any statement of objection filed on their behalf. The silence on the part of the State Government and the Land Tribunal regarding the serious allegations made by the petitioners in spite of being party respondents to the petitions gives credence to the allegations made by the petitioners. ( 15 ) RESPONDENT-6 the owner of the lands against whom it in alleged that he received one-fourth of the value of the lands, for not contesting the six Form No. 7 applications made by the six claimants of occupancy right, and acordingly did not contest the claims and remained ex-parte before the Land Tribunal has also remained exparte and the allegations made against him remain uncontroverted. ( 16 ) RESPONDENT-3 V. L. Patil has filed the statement of objections. He has stated that he as Member of the Land Tribunal relied on the information placed before the Land Tribunal by the Tahsildar and Secretary of the Tribunal and the order was baaed on such information. ( 16 ) RESPONDENT-3 V. L. Patil has filed the statement of objections. He has stated that he as Member of the Land Tribunal relied on the information placed before the Land Tribunal by the Tahsildar and Secretary of the Tribunal and the order was baaed on such information. ( 17 ) HE has denied the allegations that he manipulated the entries in record of rights in favour of the last respondents in each of the petitions but has not denied the manipulation and irregularities in the entries in the record of rights, but has stated that if such irregularities are found, he is not responsible for the same. He has also denied that he in. any way instigated the last respondent in each of these petitions. He has however, admitted his close relationship with respondents-Shankara Krishnaji madane Dattatreya Babu Rao Narote and Gnyaneshwar Babu Rao Narote as alleged by the petitioners. He has also admitted the purchase of pumpset and other accessories situate on the land granted to respondent-8 in wp. 1600 of 1977 for a sum of Rs. 40,000 from respondent-6, but has clarified that it was only with the object of earning income by supplying water to land-holders near-about. He has denied the friendship of interestedness, of the other three respondents in whose favour occupancy rights have been granted, but the other particulars relating to their residence, occupation, age etc. , have not been controverted. He has alleged that these petitions have been filed at the instigation of persons who are inimically disposed towards him to tarnish his name in politics. ( 18 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 in his statement of objection has stated that he was not present when the impugned orders were passed and has stated that therefore all the allegations made against him are baseless. Ha has admitted that he' is the natural son of respondent-3 and has stated that he has gone in adopition to another branch of the family. He has adopted the statement of objections of respondent-3. ( 19 ) RESPONDENT-7 in WP. 1596 Of 1977, in his statement of objections has stated that he was cultivating the lands in respect of which occupancy right is conferred on him with the consent of Ugar Sugar works and the landlord since prior to 1965. He has adopted the statement of objections of respondent-3. ( 19 ) RESPONDENT-7 in WP. 1596 Of 1977, in his statement of objections has stated that he was cultivating the lands in respect of which occupancy right is conferred on him with the consent of Ugar Sugar works and the landlord since prior to 1965. He has denied that there are many manipulations in the record of rights and also payment of one-fourth the price of the land to the landlord. He has stated that he is cultivating the land and has, denied that respondents 3 and 4 are enjoying the lands. ( 20 ) RESPONDENT in WP. 1597 of 1977, respondent-7, in WP. 1598 of 1977, respondent-8 in WP. 1599 of 1977, respondent 8 in WP. 1600 of 1977 and respondent-8 in WP. 1601 of 1977 have filed statements of objections on the same lines as the statement of objections filed by respondent-7 in wp. 1596 of 1977. ( 21 ) SRI. K. A. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners urged the following contention: the impugned orders are illegal and liable to be quashed for the following, reasons : (i) The Land Tribunal has failed to hold the enquiry as prescribed under Sec. 48-A of the Act read with Rules 17 and 19 of the Rules framed thereunder. (ii) In view of close relationship and or interest of respondents 3 and 4, who were Members of the Land Tribunal, with the six applicants, the order vitiated on account of their personal bias in favour of the applicants. (iii) Failure on the part of the Land Tribunal to hold the enquiry was on account of collateral consideration on the part of respondents 3 and 4, who were the Members of the Land Tribunal, Raibag, and who wanted that these lands should be granted in favour of the last of the respondent in each of the petitions who are either their close relations or friends, for their own benefit ( 22 ) SRI G D. Shirgurkar, learned Counsel for respondent-7 in WPs. 1596, 1597 and 1598 of 1977 and for respondent-8 in WPs. 1600 and 1601 of 1977 Sri. Mohandas Hegde learned counsel for respondent-8 in WP. 1599 of 1977, Sri. R. P. Hiremath, learned counsel for respondeint-3 and Sri. 1596, 1597 and 1598 of 1977 and for respondent-8 in WPs. 1600 and 1601 of 1977 Sri. Mohandas Hegde learned counsel for respondent-8 in WP. 1599 of 1977, Sri. R. P. Hiremath, learned counsel for respondeint-3 and Sri. C. R. Patil, learned counsel for respondent in all the petitions concentrated their entire defence on the question of maintainability and laches of the petitioners and urged that the petitions should be dismissed in limine and this Court should also dismiss the petitions on the ground that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands and urged the following contentions: (i) The existence of a right and its infringement is the basis for invoking the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 and as none of the rights of the petitioners are affected by the impugned orders, the writ petitions ard not maintainable. (ii) Assuming that the petitioners were interested in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal the petitioners liaving failed to appear before! the Tribunal in response to the public notice issued under Sec. 48a (2) of the Act the petitioners cannot on account of their acquiescence and laches invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. (iii) The impugned writ petitions having been presented after nearly one year after the impugned orders were passed should be rejected in limine on the ground of delay. (iv) The petitions should be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not come with clean hands. ( 23 ) I shall first deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents. It was urged fr the last respondent in, each of the peftitions that the petitioners who are not partiesi either as landlords or tenants, have no locus standi to present these petitions. They urged that the existence of a right in the petitioners is a condition precedent for the maintainability of the petitions. In support of the above submission, they relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Gas Coy Ltd v. State of W. B. AIR. 1962 SC. 1044. In the said decision it was held that the right that can be enforced under Art. 226 shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified. 1962 SC. 1044. In the said decision it was held that the right that can be enforced under Art. 226 shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified. It was held in the said case that the appellant had a personal right to manage the company and therefore had the locus standi to file the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constn. They next relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd v. State of Bihar, AIR. 1963 SC. 516. In. the said, decision, also it was held that the party complaining infringement of his fundamental rights of property, must establish that he has title to that, property and if title itself is in dispute and is the subject matter of adjudication in appropriate legal proceedings, he cannot base his claim on, the title which itself has to be determined. In the said case as the party had not acquired the right to property, it was held that his fundamental right to property has not been infringed. They next relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa. v. Ramachandra Dev, AIR. 1964 SC. 685. In the said decision it was held, that special jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 is not confined to cases, of illegal invasion of his fundamental rights alone but though the jurisdiction of the High Court under art. 226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the Article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party has a right, and the said right is illegally invaded Or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Art. 226. In, the said case the Supreme court came to the conclusion that the respondent had no right against the State Govt having regard to the fact that the properties involved in the Said case originally belonged to the State Govt. and had been granted by the State Govt to the predecessors of the respondent reserving the right to resume and the State Govt in exercise of that power resumed the lands. and had been granted by the State Govt to the predecessors of the respondent reserving the right to resume and the State Govt in exercise of that power resumed the lands. It was further held that as the question of title could not be determined in writ proceedings, it follows that no right can be postulated in favour of grantee on the basis of which a writ cam be issued in their favour under article 226. ( 24 ) SRI K. A. Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand contended that the petitioners have a right to maintain the writ petitions. He submitted that though it is true that existence of a light and its invasion is a condition precedent for the maitenance of the writ petitions, such a right need not be a personal right in property in question and such a right can be a right created under any provisions of law enacted for the benefit of specified class of persons and in such a case any person belonging to the specific class of persona for whose benefit the law is enacted can maintain a writ petition, if the authorities who are cntruste with the enforcement of such law acted in a manner to defeat the rights so created. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Ramadas shenoy v. Udupi Municipality, AIR. 1974 SC, 2177. In the said case the appellant was a a resident of Udupi Town Municipality. He challenged the resolution of the Municipal Council giving sanction to construct a cinema building in favour of Respt in the writ petition in contravention of Town Planning scheme. In the said case also, it was contended for the respondent, that none of the rights cf the petitioner had been infringed and therefore the writ petition was not maintainable. Repelling the said contention, the supreme Court held as follows :" 27. Counsel for the respondents contended that a mere grant of licence to construct a cinema causes no injury and the appellant would have no cause of action until the building would be actually used as a cinema. The appellant can challenge at the threshold when the scheme which is framed for the benefit of the residents in that area is violated by the Municipality. The Municipality acts. for the public benefit in enforcing the scheme. The appellant can challenge at the threshold when the scheme which is framed for the benefit of the residents in that area is violated by the Municipality. The Municipality acts. for the public benefit in enforcing the scheme. Where the Municipality acts in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or abuses those powers then in those cases it is not exercising its jurisdiction irregularly Or wrongly but it is usurping powers which it does not possess. The right to build on his own land is a right incidental to the ownership of that land. Within the Municipality the exercise of that right has been regulated in the interest of the community residing within the limits of the municipal Committee. If under pretence of any authority which the law does give to the Municipality it goes beyond the line of its, authority, and infringes or violates the rights of others, it becomes like all other individuals amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts. If sanction is given to build by contravening a bye-law ' the jurisdiction of the courts will be invoked on the ground that the approval by an authority of building plans which contravene the bye-laws made by that authority is illegal and inoperative. (See Yobbicon v. King (1899) 1 QB 444 ). 28. An illegal construction of a cinema building materially, affects the right to or enjoyment of the property by persons residing in the residential area. The Municipal Authorities owe a duty and obligation under the statute to see that the residential area is not spoilt by unauthorised construction. The scheme is for the benefit of the residents of the locality. The Municipality acts in aid of the scheme. The rights of the residents in the area are invaded by an illegal construction of a cinema building. It has to be remembered, that a scheme in a residential area means planned orderliness accordence with the requirements of the residents. If the scheme is nullified by arbitrary acts in excels and derogation of the powers of the Municipality the Courts will quash orders passed by the Municipalities in such cases. 29. The Court enforces the performance of statutory duty by public bodies as obligation to rate payers who have a legal right to demand compliance by a local authority with its duty to observe statutory rights alone. 29. The Court enforces the performance of statutory duty by public bodies as obligation to rate payers who have a legal right to demand compliance by a local authority with its duty to observe statutory rights alone. The scheme here is for the benefit of the public. There is special Interest in the performance of the duty. All the residents in the area have their personal interest in the performance of the duty. The special and substantial interest of the residents in the area is injured by the illegal construction. " he also relied on another decision in J. M. Desai v Roshan Kumar, AIR. 1976 SC. 578. In the said case the Supreme Court after reviewing all the earlier decisions observed as follows : 33. This Court has laid down a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under art. 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter. (See State of Orrisa v. Madan Gopal ( AIR 1952 SC 12 ), calcutta Gas Co v. State "of WB. ( AIR 1962 SC 1044 ); etc. , 36. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari an applicant may ordinarily fall in. any of these categories; (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger', (iil) busy body of meddle-some interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquelade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of probono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. They masquelade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of probono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High court should do well to reject the applications of such busy bodies at the threshold. 37. The distinction between the first and second categories of applicants, though real, is not always well-demarcated. The first category hag as it were, two concentric zones; a solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding certrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of 'persons aggrieved'. In the grey-outer-circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal discretion. All persons in this outerzone may not be 'persons aggrieved'. 38. To distinguish such applicants from 'strangers', among them, some broad tests may be deduced from the conspectus made above. These tests are not absolute and ultimate. Their efficacy varies according to the circumstances of the case, including the statutory context in which the matter falls to be considered. These are: whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest, recognised by law, hais been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority, complained of? Is he a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a person 'against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something? Has he a special and substantial grievance of his Own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the impugned action? Has he a special and substantial grievance of his Own beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the impugned action? If so, was he prejudicially affected in the exercise of that right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority? Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the words 'person aggrieved ' is being considered, a social welfare measurer designed to lay down ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community, or is it a statute dealing with private rights of particular individuals? " he further relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in konamdur Lingappa v. State of Kar, WP. 4927 77 d 31-10-77 and 2-11-77. In the said decision, Members of the State Legislature challenged the legality of a Commission of Inquiry appointed by the State Govt under Sec. 3 of the Commission of Inquiry act on the ground that the appointment of the said Commission, of Inquiry by the State Govt was illegal and with the object of circumventing the impartial inquiry by a Commission appointed by the Central Govt under sec. 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act on the memorandum submitted by the petitioners therein. In the said case also it ,was contended by the state Govt that none of the personal rights of the petitioners had been infringed by the appointment of Commission and therefore they had no locus standi to present the said writ petition. This Court, after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in J. M. Desai's case (5) (supra) came to the conclusion, that the petitioners who were members! of the state Legislature and who were also signatories to the memorandum submitted to the union Home Minister making serious allegations of corruption, nepotism and favourtism by the Chief Minister of the State and some of his Cabinet Colleagues, had sufficient -interest in having a proper inquiry Commission appointed at the hands Of the Central Govt and to have the matter investigated and therefore had the locus standi to challenge the validity of the notification issued by the Startle Govt appointing the Commission. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners therein had no locus standi was rejected. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners therein had no locus standi was rejected. In the decisions of the Supreme Court on which the respondents have relied it has been held that for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court the concerned person should show that he has a right and the same has been infringed but the question, viz, as to what is the nature and extent of right that is necessary to maintain a petition did not come up for consideration in those cases. Such a question arose in the case of K. R. . Shenoy (supra ). In the said case the Supreme Court has held that a resident of municipality can question the legality of a licence for construction of a cinema building given to another, by Municipality if such licence was in violation of the provisions of the Town Ranning Act. It is this case and the decision in J. B. Desqi's case (supra) that are relevant for this case. ( 25 ) FROM the said two decisions Of the Supreme Court on which the petitioners relied and also the decision of the Division Bench of this Curt, it is clear that the question of locus standi has to be determined with reference to the statute under which the case arises, the object of the statute and the nature of the infringement. ( 26 ) AS set out earlier, the object of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, inter alia is to provide for the vesting of the lands in possession of persons over and above the maximum ceiling limit prescribed under the act in the State Govt and for the distribution of the excess land so vested in the State Govt to persons belonging to the weaker sections of the society such as persons belonging to scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and landless agricultural labourers. The Land Tribunal under Sec. 48a of the Act is entrusted with the duty and responsibility of determining the rights of the tenants for occupancy rights and also distributing the excess lands which stand vested in the State Govt in accprdance with the provisions of Sec. 77 of the Act as is clear from Sec. 48a read with Sec. 112b of the Act. In this case it is not disputed that the 2nd petitioner belongs: to scheduled' caste and that petitioners 6, 7, 8 and 9 are landless agricultural labourers. In this case it is not disputed that the 2nd petitioner belongs: to scheduled' caste and that petitioners 6, 7, 8 and 9 are landless agricultural labourers. Sec. 77 of the Act specifically provides that the lands so vested in the State Govt under the various provisions of the Act, to the extent of 50 per cent shall be reserved for grant to persons belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and the rest of the land shall be granted in favour of displaced tenants having no lands or landless agricultural labourers and landless persons including the persons whose gross annual income does not exceed Rs. 2,000 and other persons residing in the same village. In the light of the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court and the Divn bench judgment of this Court, the question for consideration is whether the petitioners have a special and substantial grievance of their Own, beyond some grievance or inconvenience suffered by them in common with the rest of public? In view of the specific provision contained in Sec. 77 of of the Act, it has to be held that the said section has been enacted by the legislature for conferring special benefits to the particular class of persons to which category the petitioners belong. They have a right for consideration of their claims for the grant of land which stand vested in the state Govt, under different provisions of the Act in view of Sec. 77 of the act. The case of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the benevolent provisions contained in Sec. 77 of the Act which is designed to promote the economic advancement of particular class of persons by giving special treatment under Sec. 77 of the Act to which category the petitioners belong, has been sought to be defeated by the Land Tribunal at the instance of respondents 3 and 4 by passing the impugned orders and thereby preventing the vesting of lands in the State Govt and therefore they have the necessary rights to present these writ petitions. ( 27 ) IN the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Divn bench of this Court referred to above, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the contention urged for the respondents that the petitioners have no loculs standi to present these writ petitions. ( 27 ) IN the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Divn bench of this Court referred to above, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the contention urged for the respondents that the petitioners have no loculs standi to present these writ petitions. The petitioners cannot be considered as belonging to that category of persons viz, to busy body of meddle-some interlopers, masquerading as crusaders for justice, pretending to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. In my opinion, as the petitioners belong to that class of persons for whose benefit Sec. 77 of the Act is enacted, they have a special grievance of their own apart from the general public and therefore they have got locus standi to present these writ petitions on the ground that the benefit sought to be conferred on them under Sec. 77 pf the Act which is sought to be defeated by violation of the provisions of the Act or by mala fide exercise of the power. If the petitioners have no locus standi and the State Govt does not challenge the order i such circumstance as has been in this case, there will be none to question the legality of such orders, and consequenlty the provisions of the karnataka Land Reforms Act even if defeated by such orders become final, as there will be none who can challenge such orders. I hold that the writ petitions at the instance of persons for whose benefit Sec. 77 of the Act has been incorporated by the Legislature are maintainable and the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to present these writ petitions, has to be rejected. ( 28 ) IT was next contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners having failed to appear before the Land Tribunal pursuant to the public notice issued under Sec. 48a of the Act the writ petitions have to be rejected on the ground of acquiescence. In support of the contention, the respondents relied on the decision of this Court in Ningamma v. Land tribunal, Maddur Tk, (1078) 1 Karlj. 18. In support of the contention, the respondents relied on the decision of this Court in Ningamma v. Land tribunal, Maddur Tk, (1078) 1 Karlj. 18. In the said decision, it has been held that when a public notice is issued u S. 48a (2) of the Act, any person having claim in the land notified ought to appear before the Land Tribunal in response to the public notice and put forth his claim and if he fails to do so, he cannot insist on the reopening of the claim already disposed of according to law. ( 29 ) SRI K. A. Swamy, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. He submitted thai public notice contemplated under Sec. 48a (2) in Form-8 is addressed only to persons who have got right either in the capacity of landlord Or tenant, and not to the category of persons falling under Sec. 77 of the Act. He pointed out that Sec. 48a (2) provides that the Land Trinal shall publish or cause to be published a public notice in the village in which the land is situated colling upon the landlord and or other persons having an interest in the land and to appear before it on the date specified in. . the notice and these wordings clearly indicate that persons, who a called upon to appear before the Land Tribunal or those, who have got righor interest in the land as landlords Or tenants. In support of the submission, he also relied on the wordings of Form-8 which reads as follows :" Public notice under Sec. 48a (2 ). Whereas the Tribunal has to determine the person who is entitled to be registered as an occupant of the lands described below under Section 45. Now, therefore, notice is hereby given to. (a) all tenants entitled to be iegistered as occupants u|sce. 45; (b) all landlords of such lands; and all other persons interested in such lands; to appear before the Tribunal on. . . . . with documentary evidence, if any, in support of their claim. Description of the land ***** place: Signature date: Secretary of the Tribunal. (a) all tenants entitled to be iegistered as occupants u|sce. 45; (b) all landlords of such lands; and all other persons interested in such lands; to appear before the Tribunal on. . . . . with documentary evidence, if any, in support of their claim. Description of the land ***** place: Signature date: Secretary of the Tribunal. "further he submitted that having regard to the wordings of Sec. 48a of the Act and Form-8, only persons who have got a right of ownership in the land or right of tenancy, individual or joint, are required to appear before the Land Tribunal and, Before, as the said notice is not intended to the class of persons to which the petitioners belong, their non-appearante before the Land Tribunal cannot be a ground for rejecting their' petitions on the ground of acquiescence. I am inclined to agree with the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the petitions cannot be dismissed on the ground of acquiescence on their part. The public notice contemplated under Section 48a of, the Act is meant to give to persons, who have got right of ownership in the lands Or right of tenancy over the lands concerned and calling upon them to appear before the Land Tribunal to substantiate their right, if any, and to have their rights protected. A provision for public notice is obviously provided for the reason that all the names of the persons who have got right of ownership or any other kind of right and also the names of all persons who have got rights of tenancy may not have been incorporated, in the record of rights and may not have been made as parties to the applications filed in Form-7 and if no such notice is given, it is quite likely that in such cases there may be orders of the Land Tribunal inconsistent with the rights of tenants or land-owners Or others; to whom no individual notices have been issued tor the reason that their names are not found either in the record of rights or they are not made parties to Form-7 application. Thus the public notice contemplated is to persons who have got a direct right or interest in the isnds and not to persons to which category the' petitioners belong who trace then- right to Sec. 77 of the Act for the grant of land vested in the state Govt. This view receives support from the last portion of the form which calls upon the concerned persons to appear before the Land Tribunal with documentary evidence in support of their claim. Therefore, i reject the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that the petitions should be rejected on the ground of acquiescence. ( 30 ) THE third preliminary objection to the writ petitions was on the ground of delay. The impugned orders were made on 27-12-75. The writ petitions were presented on 27-1-77. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have explained the delay in para-4. The petitioners have stated that they could not approach this Court earlier as they were not aware of the passing of the orders and the after the petitioners came to know of the orders, they obtained certified copies of the orders and thereafter it took several months to collect information and relevant records pertaining to the lands and also information with regard to the last respondents in each of the writ petitionss. They have also stated that the petitioners were also under the bona fide belief that the State Govt itself would approach the Court for getting impugned orders quashed as it has done in- similar cases in relation to the orders of the Land Tribunal in the District of Dharwar and the said writ petitions are pending in this Court. It is seen from the certified copies of the orders produced along with the writ petitions that the copies were applied on 15-4-76 and the copies were given on 4-5-1976 along with the writ petitions, the petitioners have produced large number of certified copies of the records to which a detailed reference has been made in this order and naturally it has taken some time for the petitioners to collect information and secure the documents. There is also a serious allegation of fraud committed by the members of the Land Tribunal. There is also a serious allegation of fraud committed by the members of the Land Tribunal. The petitioners after coming to know of the misuse of power by the Tribunal have secured the certified copies of the Orders in May 1976 and thereafter collecting the information and securing the certified copies of the documents have presented the writ petitions in January 1977. Therefore I do not think that this is a case in which I should reject the writ petitions on the ground of delay. It is no doubt true that there is some delay in presenting the writ petitions, but I am satisfied that the reasons given by the petitioners for the delay are genuine and have to be accepted. Therefore, i reject this contention also. ( 31 ) THE next contention urged on behalf of the respondent was that the petitions should be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not come with clear hands. It is submitted that the petitioners have falsely stated-in their writ petitions that they are landless agricultural labourers. It is not disputed that the petitioners-1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are landless persons. It if also not disputed that petitioner-2 belongs to the scheduled castes and is landless: It is however, stated that petitioner-3 owns three acres of land (Exts. 9, 10 and 11) and petitioner-5 has got 1 acre 20 guntas of land (Exts. 13, 14 and, 15) and petitioner-7 is the brother of petitioher-5 and therefore as petitioners-3 and 5 -atleast have got some lands and as in the petitions it is stated that all the petitioners are landless, the petitions have to be rejected. I do not see any substance in the above contention. Admittedly the majority of the petitioners are landless. Even petitioners-3 and 5 own only a small extent of land. They are also eligible for grant of land subject to the conditions prescribed in Sec. 77 of the Act. In any event, as it is not disputed that except petitioners-3 and 5, the other petitioners are landless and petitioner-2 belongs to the scheduled castei and he is also landless, it cannot be said that such inaccurate statement made in the petitions calls for dismissal of the writ petitipns on the ground that there has been mis-statement of facts So as to mislead the Court for issuing rule on the writ petitions. Even if petitioners-3 and 5 did not joint along with the other persons of even if it was stated in the petitions about the extent of land owned by them, that wpuld not have made any difference in the case not forward by the petitioners. I do not think that there was any intention in the part of the petitioners to mislsead this Court by making inaccurate statement and, therefore, I do not agree that the writ petitions should be,dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not come with clean hands. ( 32 ) COMING to the merits of the case, it was contended lor the petitioners, that no enquiry worth the name was conducted by the Land Tribunal. It was submitted for the petitioners that the Land Tribunal was under a duty to hold enquiry and if an enquiry was: held in this case, as required by the provisions of the Act, the Land Tribunal had no other alternative than to come to the conclusion that the applications filed by the last of the respondent in each of these writ petitions in Form-7 claiming occupancy rights had to be rejected, in view of the entries in the record of rights showing Ugar Sugar Works as the tenant of these lands right from 1953-54 upto 1972-73 and also in view of the joint wardi given by respondent-6 the owner of the lands in question and Sugar Works who was the tenant, as late as in December 1973 requesting for the deletion of the names of Ugar Sugar Works and to substitute name of Respt-6. ( 33 ) ON a reading of the orders, I have no alternative than to accept the contentions of the petitioners that the impugned orders have been passed without holding any enquiry as required by the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. In order to establish that there is no enquiry worth the name, it is sufficient to set out the orders passed by the Land tribunal. All the impugned orders in these writ petitions are stereotyped and similar except to the extent the name of the concerned applicant and lands in respect of which he claimed occupancy rights which have been incorporated in the respective orders. All the impugned orders in these writ petitions are stereotyped and similar except to the extent the name of the concerned applicant and lands in respect of which he claimed occupancy rights which have been incorporated in the respective orders. As all the orders are similar i am giving below the extract of one such Order-passed in favour of respondent-7 in the first writ petition: " In the Court of the Chairman, Land Tribunal, Raibag. No. TNCSR 171 Raibag, d 27-12-1975. Shri Shankararao Krishnaji Madane of Bekkeri,applicant v. Shri Subberao Rachojirao Jadhav of Chinchalilandlord sdb:. S. Nos. 309, 310, 311 of Chinchali preamble 1. The applicant Shri Shankararao Krishnaji Madane has submitted an application under Section 48a (1) of the KLR Act 1961 (as amended Act No. 1 of 1974) for being registered as the occupant under sec. 45, of the land which he claimes to be cultivating as tenant in s. R. Nos. 309, 310, 311 measuring 6-24, 4-32, 11-32 acres respectively. 2. Public notices and individual notices were duly served fixing the date of hearing, 3. The case was called out on the date of hearing. The parties present. 4. The objection was not filed. 5. Heard the applicant. Verified the records and made necessary enquiries. 6. As the result of the above enquiry, it was revealed that the applicant is cultivating the land from the year 1963-64 onwards till today. As such it is granted to the extent that he is cultivating.- 7. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal passes the following order : order the application referred to above is hereby granted under Section 48a (1 ). The applicant Shri shankararao Krishnaji Madane shall be registered as an occupant under Sec. 48 of the KLR Act 1961 (as amended Act No. 1 Of 1974) subject to the other provisions of the said Act. Ordiers passed and pronounced in the open Court. Sd Chairman. Land Reforms Tribunal, Raibag. " even the statements of tenant and the landlord have not been recorded. The petitioners have also produced six endorsements issued on 4-5-1976, which are marked as Exts. Z-32 to Z-37 issued by the Special Tahsttdar and Secretary of the Land Tribunal informing the petitioners that no statement of landlord Or tenant was recorded in the cases in question. " even the statements of tenant and the landlord have not been recorded. The petitioners have also produced six endorsements issued on 4-5-1976, which are marked as Exts. Z-32 to Z-37 issued by the Special Tahsttdar and Secretary of the Land Tribunal informing the petitioners that no statement of landlord Or tenant was recorded in the cases in question. Sec. 48a of the Act provides for holding an enquiry by the Land Tribunal and Sec. 112b of the Act prescribed the duties of the Land Tribunal. These provisions are as follows : "48a Enquiry by the Tribunal, etc.- (1) Every person entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sec. 45 may make an application to the Tribunal in this behalf. Every such application shall, save as provided in this Act, be made on or before the 31st day of Deer, 1974 provided that the Tribunal may, for sufficient cause shown, admit an application made beyond that date but on or before 30th day of june 1977. (2 ). On receipt of the application, the Tribunal, shall publish r cause to be published a public notice in the village in which the land is situated calling upon the landlord and all other persons having an interest in the land to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. The Tribunal shall also issue individual notices to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others as may appear to it to be interested in the land. (3) The form of the application, the form of the notices, the manner of publication or serving the notices and all other matters connected therewith, shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) Where no objection is filed, the Tribunal may, after such verification as it considers necessary, by order, either grant or reject the application. (5) Where an objection is filed disputing the validity of the applicans claim Or setting up a rival claim, the Tribunal shall, after enqury determine, by order, the person entitled to be registered as occupant and pass orders accordingly. (5a) Where there is no objection in respect of any part of the claim, the Tribunal may at once pass orders granting the application as regards that part and proceed separately in respect of the other part objected to. (5a) Where there is no objection in respect of any part of the claim, the Tribunal may at once pass orders granting the application as regards that part and proceed separately in respect of the other part objected to. (6) The order of the Tribunal I under this section shall be final and the Tribunal shall send a copy of every order passed by it to the tahsildar and the parties concerned. (7) The person to be registered as an occupant shall pay to the state Govt as premium an amount equal to fifteen times the net anr nual income referred to in sub-sec (2) of Sec. 47 in the case of A Class, b Class and C Class lands referred to in Part-A Of Schedule-1 and twenty times such income in the case of D Class land referred to in the said Part-A plus the amount, if any, payable under sub-sec (3) of that section: provided that the premium payable by a permanent tenant shall be Six times the difference between the rent and the land revenue of the land. (8) Where no application is made within the time allowed under sub-sec (1), the right bf any person to be registered as an occupant shall have no effect. 112. Duties of Tahsildar and Tribunal. (A) Duties of Tahsildar * * * * (B) Duties of Tribunal (a) to make necessary verification or hold an enquiry and pass orders in cases relating to registration of tenant as occupant under Section 48a; (b) to decide whether a person is a tenant or not; (c) to grant surplus land under Section 77; (d) to perform such other duties and functions as are imposed on the Tribunal under the provisions of this Act or under any rule made thereunder. " as can be seen from sub-sec (4) of Sec. 48a of the Act, the Land. Tribunal is- entrusted with the power to make necessary verification and thereafter either to grant or reject the application for occupancy rights even in cases where no objection is filed. Therefore the provision bf Sec. 48a read with sec. 112b of the Act which prescribes the duties of the Land Tribunal makes it clear that the Land Tribunal cannot mechanically grant an application for registration of occupancy rights made in-Form-7 even in cases where objections are not filed. Therefore the provision bf Sec. 48a read with sec. 112b of the Act which prescribes the duties of the Land Tribunal makes it clear that the Land Tribunal cannot mechanically grant an application for registration of occupancy rights made in-Form-7 even in cases where objections are not filed. The Tribunal has got a duty to verify the records and has to record a finding that the lands were tenanted lands as on 1-3-74 on which date the Amendment Act 1974 came into force and even if they were tenanted, whether the person, who has claimed tenancy was a tenant lawfully cultivating the land on that date. These findings are condition precedent for the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights. In. this behalf, it is necessary, to point out that if the Land Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the lands were not tenanted lands as on 1-3-1974 and consequently. it remains with the landlord and the holding of such landlord is in excess of the ceiling limit fixed by the Act or the Tribunal holds that the lands were tenanted on 1-3-74, but the person, who has claimed occupancy rights, was not lawfully cultivating the lands as on 1-3-74, such lasnds stand vested in the State Govt and" become available for distribution in accordance with Sec. 77 of the Act. The duty of the Land Tribunal to hold such enquiry also finds Support from Rules 17 and 19 of the Rules, rule 17 of the Rules provides that the Land Tribunal has to hold a summary enquiry as precribed under Sec. 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act. Rule 19 of the Rules makes is obligatory for the Land Tribunal to verify the entries in the record Of rights. The said rule requires that the tahsildar shall verify the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the entries jn the record of rights after getting the concerned registers himself and also note the same on the application. In the present case, there is clear violation of Rules 17 and 19 Of the Rules. The said rule requires that the tahsildar shall verify the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the entries jn the record of rights after getting the concerned registers himself and also note the same on the application. In the present case, there is clear violation of Rules 17 and 19 Of the Rules. If the record of rights had been correctly verified by the Tahsildar, he had no alternative thari to note on the applications filed by the last respondents in each of these writ petitions that their statement that they are cultivating the lands in question as tenants for more than 12 years is not supported by the entries in the record of rights i. e. is pahanies and mutation entries. The entries in the record of rights have also presumptive value in view of sec. 133 Of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In the present case, the land Tribunal has completely ignored the entries in the record of rights and has failed t verify the record of rights. ( 34 ) IN the circumstances, I hold that the impugned orders are illegal as the same have been made without holding enquiry as required by Section 48a (4) read with Sec. ll2b of the Act and Rules 17 and 19 of the Rules. ( 35 ) COMING to the further submission on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned orders are vitiated on Account of bias of respondents 3 and 4, who were Members of the Tribunal, and the submission that the impugned orders were passed by the Tribunal without holding enquiry on account of collateral consideration on the part of respondents 3 and 4, i shall only refer to the following facts and documents, the truth of which has not been controverted on behalf of the respondents: (i) Respondent-3, who was the Member of the Land Tribunal, is the natural father of respondent-4, who was another Member of the Land tribunal. (ii) Respondent-7 in WP. 1596 77 is closely related to Respts-3 and being the husband of respondent-3's wife's sister and that he is a Labour officer in Chatrapati Sugar Factory Ltd, Baramati, Dist Poona in the state of Maharashtra. (iii) Respondent-7 in WP. . 1597 77 is also closely related to Respto-3 and 4 being the brother of the wife of Rept-3. 1596 77 is closely related to Respts-3 and being the husband of respondent-3's wife's sister and that he is a Labour officer in Chatrapati Sugar Factory Ltd, Baramati, Dist Poona in the state of Maharashtra. (iii) Respondent-7 in WP. . 1597 77 is also closely related to Respto-3 and 4 being the brother of the wife of Rept-3. He is a whole-sale cloth merchant and resident of Sholapur in the State of Maharashtra. (iv) Respondent-7 in WP. 1598|77 is also closely related to Respts-3 and 4 being the brother of 3rd respondent's wife and he is only 21 years of age and is studying in college at Sholapur. ' (v) Respondent-8 in WP. 1599 77 is a resident of Bykad and is attending to the agricultural work of respondents 3 and 4. In the statement of objection, he admits that he is related to respondent-3 though Respt-3 has denied the relationship. (vi) Respondent-8 in WP. 1600 77 is a resident of Ankola-kop far away from the lands in the district of Sangli in the State of Maharashtra he is a Member of Setkari Shakara Karkane Ltd, Sangli in the State of maharashtra. He states that he is related to respondent-3, though respondent-3 has said that there is no relationship. (vii) Respondent-8 in WP. 1601|77 is a resident of Bombay and is a businessman. He is aged 25 years. He was the classmate and past friend of respondent-4. (viii) In the record of rights, the names of the last of the respondents in, each of the writ petitions have been inserted in addition to Ugar sugar Works in the cultivator's column only for the years 1968-64 or 1964- 65 and the name of Ugar Sugar Works continued to be shown as tenant upto 1972-73, and has also been shown for the earlier period from 1959 up- to 1964-65. (ix) Exhibit Z-31, the mutation entry bearing No. 2948 d 19-10-1964 which indicates that the last of the respondent in each of the writ petitions are tenants in respect of the lands for which they claimed occupancy rights is above another entry beaming the same number relating to some other land dated 10-1-1963. (ix) Exhibit Z-31, the mutation entry bearing No. 2948 d 19-10-1964 which indicates that the last of the respondent in each of the writ petitions are tenants in respect of the lands for which they claimed occupancy rights is above another entry beaming the same number relating to some other land dated 10-1-1963. (x) Exhibit Z-27 is the mutation entry dated 2-12-1973 and it shows that joint wardi was given by M|s, Ugar Sugar Works and respondent 6, to the effect that the lease in respect of these lands in favour of M|s. Ugar Sugar Works came to an end and the name of respondent-6 was substituted in place of M|s. Ugar Sugar Works. (xi) No lease in favour of respondent-7 in W. Ps. 1596 to 1598 of 1977 and respondent-8 in W. Ps. 1599 to 1601 of 1977 has been pleaded on proved, but on the other hand the claim made in the statement of objection is that they were cultivating the lands with the consent of respondent-6 the landlord and the tenant M|s. Ugar Sugar Works and not as tenants under respondent-6 as claimed in the applications. (xii) The electric pump set and accessories situated on the lands bearing Sy. No. 308 which is one of the lands granted in favour of respondent-8 in WP. 1600|77 has been purchased for Rs. 40,000 by respondent-3 from respondent-6 and the water is being supplied for the lands in question from the pumpsets belonging to respondent-3. (xiii) All the persons, namely, last of the respondents in each of these petitions, say that the lands are being got cultivated through labourers. ( 36 ) THE above undisputed facts and documents indicate the personal interest of respondents 3 and 4 in the claim for occupancy rights put forward by the last of the respondents in each Of these petitions. The undisputed close relationship of respondents 3 and 4 with respondent-7 in WP. 1596 to 1598 of 1977, respectively, and also admitted relationship with respondent-8 in WPs. 1599 and 1600 of 1977, respectively, and, the close friendship of respondent-8 in WP. 1601|77 with respondent-4, there existed a serious conflict of interest and duty in the participation of respondent-3 and 4 in deciding their claims. Respondent-4 has stated that he was not present on the date when the impugned orders were passed. Respondent-3, however, has not denied his presence. 1601|77 with respondent-4, there existed a serious conflict of interest and duty in the participation of respondent-3 and 4 in deciding their claims. Respondent-4 has stated that he was not present on the date when the impugned orders were passed. Respondent-3, however, has not denied his presence. Apart from the presence or absence of respondent-4 on the date when the impugned orders were passed, both respondents 3 and 4 should have placed on record that in view of their close relationship with respondent-7 in WPs. 1596 to 1598 of 1977 as also relationship or friendship with the other three claimants and other facts and circumstances of the case, they decline to participate in the proceedings of the Land Tribunal in these cases at any stage of the proceedings. But unfortunately they did not do so. It is significant to note that the orders of the Land Tribunal does not bear the signature of any member other than the Chairman. On the other hand the certified copies produced show at the top that as if there is the "court of Chairman, Land tribunal, Raibag" and is signed by the Chairman only. In the absence Of any record made by respondents 3 and 4 as to their interestedness and their desire not to participate in the proceedings of the Tribunal concerning these cases at any stage and admitted participation of respondent-3 in, the proceeding which resulted in the passing of the six impugned orders of the tribunal, I hold that the impugned orders are vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice (See Sathyanarayana Rao v. State of Karnatatka, 1977 (2) Karlj. 193. ( 37 ) COMING to the second aspect of the matter, from the facts set out, it may be seen that respondents 3 and 4 are father and son respectively who had been appointed as Members of the same Land Tribunal. It appears to me that it was not desirable, that person so closely related should have been appointed as Members of the same Land Tribunal. Irrespective of the said fact, their close relationship with respondent-7 in WPs. 1596 to 1598 of 1977 has been admitted. Out of them respondent-7 is a Labour Officer in a Sugar Factory at Baramati in Poona Dist in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent-7 in WP. Irrespective of the said fact, their close relationship with respondent-7 in WPs. 1596 to 1598 of 1977 has been admitted. Out of them respondent-7 is a Labour Officer in a Sugar Factory at Baramati in Poona Dist in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent-7 in WP. 1597|77 is a wholesale cloth merchant and resi dent of Sholapur in the State of Maharashtra. His younger brother is respondent-7 in wp. 1598|77. He is a college student and aged 21 years. These facts are not disputed. In form-7 application itself he has given his age as 21 years and he has stated that he was a tenant of the lands in respect of which he cliamed occupancy right for more than twelve years, which means that he became a tenant at the age of 9 years or even earlier, which on the face of it appears to be improbable. Respondent-8 in WP. 1599|77 has admitted his relationship with respondent-3 in his statement of objections. The allegation that he is looking after the agricultural work of respondent-3 has not been controverted Respondent-8 in WP. 1600|77 has also admitted his relationship with respondent-3 in his statement of objections. The averment that he is a resident of Ankal-kop in the State of Maharashtra far away from the lands is not controverted. Similarly the allegation that respondent-8 in WP. 1601|77 is aged 25 years is a resident of Bombay and businessman and was a classmate of. respondent-4 and his past friend has not been denied. He has given his age in Form-7 application as 25 years and he hasi also stated that he was a tenant of. the lands in respect of which he claimed occupancy right for the last 12 years which means that he became a tenant at the age of 13 years or even earlier, which on the face of it is highly improbable. The entries in the record of rights show that Ugar Sugar Works were the tenants of ail these lands till 31-3-73. There is no document evidencing the lease in favour of the last respondent in each of the petitions. The existence of tenancy in respect of these lands between respondent-6 and Ugar Sugar works till 31-3-73 is not disputed and could not be disputed. This itself was sufficient to negative the claim of the last of the respondents in each of these petitions. The existence of tenancy in respect of these lands between respondent-6 and Ugar Sugar works till 31-3-73 is not disputed and could not be disputed. This itself was sufficient to negative the claim of the last of the respondents in each of these petitions. Strangely in the six Form-7 applications which are also similar, they stated that they were tenants for more than twelve years. When confronted with. the registered lease deed in favour of Ugar Sugar works from 1-4-53 to 31-3-73, all the respondents have come forward with a stereo-typed version viz, that they were cultivating these lands with the consent of respondent-6 and Ugar Sugar Wrks i. e. , landlord and the tenant. This is clearly an after thought because they did not say so in Form-7 qpplication. Further this stand is completely inconsistent with the claim of tenancy made in Form-7. Moreover, even on the said basis, it is not explained how they can also acquire the status of tenant, when tenancy of Ugar Sugar Works in respect of these lands upto 31-3-73 is not disputed, it is also necessary to point out that it is not the case of respondents that any tenancy came into existence after 31-3-73. Respondent-6 against whom it is specifically alleged that he took one fourth the price of the lands for not opposing Form-7 applications has remained ex parte and has not controverted the serious allegations. The Land Tribunal and the Chairman being parties to the writ petitions have also not denied the serious allegations made in the writ petitions. It is unfortunate that the Chairman who is an officer of the rank of Asst Commr and a Member of the Indian Administrative Service, is party to the non-holding of the enquiry and for the passing of the six perfunctory and stereo-typed orders which are impugned in these writ petitions. It is unfortunate that the Chairman who is an officer of the rank of Asst Commr and a Member of the Indian Administrative Service, is party to the non-holding of the enquiry and for the passing of the six perfunctory and stereo-typed orders which are impugned in these writ petitions. ( 38 ) IN the light of the above facts and reasons, I hold that the failure on the part of the Land Tribunal in looking into the record of rights and other circumstances of the case by holding enquiry as required under Section 48a (4) read with Sec. 112b, and Rules 17 and 19 of the Rules was deliberate and the same was on account of collateral consideration viz, the personal interest of respondents 3 and 4 in the applications filed by the last of the respondent in each of these writ petitions. ( 39 ) APART from the record of rights i. e. pahani and mutation entries, the petitioners have also produced some unimpeachable documentary evidence in support of their case that the lands in question were leased to Ugar Sugar Works from 1-4-53 to 31-3-73 and during 1973-74 the lands were under personal cultivation of respondent-6. They are (i) Exhibit-J. Certified copies of registered lease deed d 30th April, 1974 evidencing the lease of the lands in question by respondent-6 in favour of Uga,r Sugar Works from 1-4-1953 to 31 5-1973. (ii) Letter d| 26|27-3-1974 evidencing the sale of electrical installations on the lands in question by Ugar Sugar Works in favour of respondent-6 for a sum of Rs. 26,686: (iii) Exhibit-Z-30: Certified copy of registered sale deed dj 19-10-74 evidencing the sale of building, electric motor, pipe line and allied materials, situated on the land in Sy. NO. 308 of Chinchali village (which is one of the land in respect of which occupancy right is conferred on respondent-8 in WP. 1600|77) by respondent-6 in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and two Other sons and the daughter of respondent-3 for Rs. 40,000. (iv) Exhibit-Z-32: A Bill d 26-4-1974 for Rs. 6,066 by Ugar Sugar works in the name of respondent-6 for supply of water for some of the lands in question for the cultivating season 1973-74, and showing that maize and wheat were grown by respondent-6. This fact is not controverted by respondent-6. 40,000. (iv) Exhibit-Z-32: A Bill d 26-4-1974 for Rs. 6,066 by Ugar Sugar works in the name of respondent-6 for supply of water for some of the lands in question for the cultivating season 1973-74, and showing that maize and wheat were grown by respondent-6. This fact is not controverted by respondent-6. (v) Exhibit-Z-45: Certified copy of declaration filed by respondent-6 under Sec. 66 of the Land Reforms Act d| 17-11-1969 showing the lands in question in the statement Annexure-E and that the lands in question have been leased to Ugar Sugar Works, and the names, of the last respondent in each of the petitions are now shown as cultivating these lands. The above documents make out a strong case, against respondent 3 and 4 and the last of the respondent in, each of these petitions. Particularly the declaration filed by respondent-6 (Ext. Z-45) under Sec. 66 of the land reforms Act on 17-11-69 in which only Ugar Sugar Works are Shown as tenants of these lands and not the persons in whose favour the impugned orders are passed also strongly suggest that the pahani enjtries and mutation, entries made in favour of the present claimants are subsequent interpolations. Further Ext. Z-27, certified copy of the mutation entry No. 4611 d| 2-12-73 made on the joint} 'wardi' of respondent-6 and Ugar Sugar works substituting the name of respondent-6 in place of Ugar Sugar works in view of the termination, of the lease, indicates that the aforesaid entries in favour of these six applications must have been made after 2-12- 1973, because if these persons were tenants twelve years before 1-3-1974 as stated by them in their Form-7 application and as admitted by respondent-6 and these entries were in existence, respondent-6 would have certainly mentioned their names in Statement-E annexed to the declaration in respect of the lands in question, and also at the time when 'wardi' was given. ( 40 ) SRI Mohandas Hegde, learned Counsel for respondent-8 in WP. 1599|77 submitted that in a proceeding for the issue of writ of certiorari, this court cannot look into the fresh evidence adduced by petitioners and the validity of the order of the Land Tribunal has to be decided on the basis of of the evidence before it. In support of this submission reliance was placed on Halasbury's Laws of - England, Vol. In support of this submission reliance was placed on Halasbury's Laws of - England, Vol. 11 page 805 and on 1973 (3) AH england Law Reports, page 289. ( 41 ) IN these petitions, it is unnecessary to examine the legality of the impugned orders with reference to the fresh evidence adduced by the petitioners, as i have come to the conclusion that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed as the Tribunal has failed to look into the record of rights which it was bound to look into in view of Rule 19 of the Rules and also on account of the personal relationship and interest of Repts. 3 and 4. ( 42 ) LASTLY it was contended on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 and the last respondent in each of these petitions that when respondent-6 did not file objection to the six applications filed claiming occupancy right of the lands of which he was the owner, the Land Tribunal had no other alternative than to grant the applications. In support of the aforesaid contention they relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sangappa v. Land Tribunal, (1978) 1 Karlj. 43 . . In the said case it was held that the Land Tribunal should take up in the first instance, the proceedings arising under secs. 66 and 67 of the Act and find out whether the alleged tenancy is collusive one if such a case has been made out by the Tahsildar. It has been further held that if the Land Tribunal reject the case of the Tahsildar, it has to make an appropriate order in the proceedings under Section 48a of the Act and if the landlord in such a case does not contest the tenancy there is no option but to grant the Occupancy right in the proceedings under Sec. 48a of the Act. These cases are clearly distinguishable from the aforesaid case. Firstly in the declaration filed under Sec. 66, respondent-6 has not at all mentioned the names of the six respondents as tenants in Annexure-E to the declaration. Secondly, in this case it is established that the impugned orders have been vitiated on account of personal interest of respondents 3 and 4 owing to their close relationship and other reasons, with the persons claiming occupancy rights. Secondly, in this case it is established that the impugned orders have been vitiated on account of personal interest of respondents 3 and 4 owing to their close relationship and other reasons, with the persons claiming occupancy rights. Thirdly the "ilegations against respontdent-6 that he conceded the claim by taking one-fourth the price of the lands has npt been controverted by him. Fourthly the allegations made against Chairman of the Land Tribunal also remain uncontroverted. Therefore the decision on which the respondents relied has no application to a case of this type. Further, it has to be observed provision is made in Sec. 48a (4) of the Act conferring power on the Land Tribunal to enquire into the claims for occupancy right even in cases whrere no objections are filed. This provision specifically empowers the Land, Tribunal to grant or reject the claim in, such cases in spite of there being no objection if the Land Tribunal on enquriy finds that the claim put farward and, not opposed to, is not a legitimate claim. This sub-section has not been brought to the notice of the Court in the aforesaid case. The power under Sec. 48a (4) read with Sec. 112 (B) of the Act, is conferred on the land Tribunal in order to enable to it enquire into the truth of the claims for occupancy right in cases, such as the present ones, and to reject spurious claims and to ensure the proper implementation of the Act or in other words to prevent the misuse of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of these cases, the failure on the part of the Land Tribunal to hold enquiry renders the impugned orders illegal. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of these cases, the failure on the part of the Land Tribunal to hold enquiry renders the impugned orders illegal. ( 43 ) BEFORE concluding, it has to be observed that frere is a Strong case to be enquired into by the Govt, as to how and by whom the names of the six claimants came to be entered in the pahani for the year 1964-65 and for the year 1963-64 also in some cases even though Ugar Sugar Works were the tenants of those lands right from 1953 upto 1973 and their names is found in the cultivator's column upto and including the year 1972-73 and also how the names of the six claimants came to be entered for the year 1973-74 when, no new tenancy could be created then and in fact there was no new tenancy and also as to how the interpolation entry in the mutation register came to be made, ( 44 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the Rule is made absolute, and the impugned orders d| 27-12-75 Exts. C, D, E, F, G and H are quashed. The cases are remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal after holding enquiry in accordance with law in the light of the above order. It is further directed that full opportunity to the petitioners in these writ petitions shall be given by the Land Tribunal to adduce documentary and oral evidence in support of their case that the last respondent in each of these petitions was not a tenant of the lands in respect of which he has claimed occupancy right. The petitioners are entitled to the costs from the last of the respondent in each of the writ petitions. Advocate's fee Rs. 250 in each Of the writ petitions. --- *** --- .