VENKATASWAMI, J. ( 1 ) VENKATACHARI of Maduvinakodi, Krit shnarajapet Talukt, Mandya District has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari or such other suitable writ, direction, or order quashing the notices bearing No. L. R. F. A. 631/74-75 dated 17-4-1978 (Ext-G) and No. L. R. F. CR- 105/78-79 dated 10-8-1978: (Ex-G) and No- L. R-F. C. R. 105|78-79 dated 10-8-1978 (Ex-J) issued to him by the Special Tahsildar, K. R. Pet, taluk (respondent-2 herein); a writ of Prohibition or such other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respcndent-2 not to proceed to evict the petitioner from the land in question until final orders are passed by the Land Tribunal, K. R. Pet Taluk (respondent-1 herein) wherein the application filed by him in form No. 7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the Act) is pending enquiry; and also a writ of Mandamus to the Land tribunal, K. R. Pet Taluk directing it to hold the enquiry on the application he has filed claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. ( 2 ) SY. No. 106/2 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas and situated in Maduvinakodi village, K. R. Pet Taluk, originally belonged to one Ahobala Sastry. After his death the name of his wife Lakshmidevamma was shown as the kathedar of this land in the relevant revenue records. Subsequently the name of Krishnappa (respondent-4 herein) is shown as the kathedar. In his objection statement Krishnappa has stated that Lakshmidevamma had died in the month of November, 1971, and that under a will executed by her she had bequeathed the land in his favour he now claims to be the owner of the land. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the land in question is a tenanted land, and that the petitioner has been cultivating the same as a lessee. Respondent-4 claims that he is a Soldier and as such is entitled to resume this land under S. 15 of the Act. He is said to have retired from service on 1-11-1977. Seeking resumption of the land he approached respondent-2, who in turn, having taken a decision that respondent-4 was en itled to resume this land has called upon the petitioner by the aforesaid notices to deliver vacant possession of the same to respondent-4. He is said to have retired from service on 1-11-1977. Seeking resumption of the land he approached respondent-2, who in turn, having taken a decision that respondent-4 was en itled to resume this land has called upon the petitioner by the aforesaid notices to deliver vacant possession of the same to respondent-4. ( 4 ) NOW, the contention of the petitioner is that the land in question has vested in the State Government under s. 44 of the Act; that he is entitled to obtain occupancy rights over the same; that he has made an application for this purpose in form No. 7 before respondent-1; that the same is pending there; and that, in the circumstances respondent-2 should not take any steps to evict him from the land and also that respondent-4 has no right to resume the land from him. ( 5 ) THAT Venkatachari has filed an application before respondent-1 in form No. 7 of the Act claiming occupancy rights in respect of this land is not in dispute. He has placed in the file a copy of that application, Ext-A. The application is said to be still pending enquiry. Meanwhile, what respondent-2 has done is that he has issued a notice bearing No. LRF-A. 631/74-75 dated 17-4-1978 (Ex. G) to venkatachari stating that the land in question stands in the name of krishnappa, a retired soldier, and that therefore be (Venkatachari) was not entitled to get occupancy rights in respect of that land though he had applied for the same, and hence he (Venkatachari) should hand over possession of the land to Krishnappa within a month of the receipt of the said notice. Reiterating the very decision respondent-2 issued another notice bearing No. L. R. F. C. R, 105/78-79 dated 10-8-1978 (Ex. J) to Venkatachari calling upon him to deliver possession of the land and warning him that, if, in case, he fails to do so further steps would be taken against him in accordance with law to evict him. ( 6 ) UNDER S. 44 of the Act all tenanted lands existing as on 1-3-1974 or immediately prior thereto except the lands held by tenants under leases permitted under S. 5 vest in the State government. In respect of such lands tenants are entitled to obtain occupancy rights and for this purpose they are required to make applications under Section. In respect of such lands tenants are entitled to obtain occupancy rights and for this purpose they are required to make applications under Section. 48a of the Act before the concerned Land Tribunals. The application made by Venkatachari and said to be pending enquiry with respondent-1 is one such application- If it is held that this land has vested under sec. 44 of the Act respondent-4 would have no right to resume the land. The tribunal is required to give a finding on this point and this it has to after 'hearing all concerned including respondent-4. If the Tribunal hloldsi that this land had not vested under Sec. 44 of the Act for the reason that it was a lease permitted under S. 5 then only krishnappa would have a right to resume the land. While that matter is still pending enquiry before the Tribunal, Respt 2 cannot arrogate to himself the jurisdiction to give a finding re: that matter. The proper course for him was to have kept that application, if any, filed by Krishnappa pending awaiting the final decision of respondent-1 in the matter. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed with costs; the rule issued is made absolute; and the notices issued by respondent-2 (herein) , Exhibits 'g' and 'j' to the petitioner are hereby quashed. Respondent-2 is hereby directed not to take any further steps on the request of Krishnappa to resume the land in question from the petitioner by evicting him from the land until the application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in form no. 7 of the Act is disposed of, and respondent-2 is further directed to pass suitable orders on the resumption application filed by Krishnappa only in the light of the decision rendered by respondent-1. Respondent-1 is hereby directed to hold an, enquiry into the application filed by the petitioner in form No- 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question and to dispose of the same on merits after notice to all concerned including respondent-4, Krishnappa- Respondent- 1 is also directed to dispose of that application within six months from the date of receipt of this order. ( 8 ) LET copies of this order be sent forthwith tc the Land Tribunal, K. R. Pet Taluk and to the special Tahsildar, k. R. Pet Taluk. ( 8 ) LET copies of this order be sent forthwith tc the Land Tribunal, K. R. Pet Taluk and to the special Tahsildar, k. R. Pet Taluk. ( 9 ) THE costs of this petition shall be borne by respondent-2 herein. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/ -. --- *** --- .