M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctnass of the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Ron, in Case no. KLR. ASR. 1124/239 dated 10-8-1977, inter alia contending that the said order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same was passed without taking into consideration the written statement filed by him in support of his application for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos. 19/2 and 21/1 of Kuruvenakoppa Village of Ron taluk. It is further urged that the Tribunal did not examine any witness nor record any statement of the landlord or the tenant in the proceedings before it so that the petitioner would have the right to cross-examine any statement made on oath before the Tribunal, particularly in regard to the factum of possession and cultivation of the lands in question. ( 2 ) IT is unnecessary to notice the other grounds urged in the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE impugned order is at Ext-B to the petition. It is seen therefrom that the Tribunal on the very first day of the commencement of the proceedings before it has passed the order after perusing the records. It is not possible to find out from the order that either the petitioner or respondents 3 to 5 were present before it. No doubt the impugned order refers to (the previous litigation, in Civil Courts and the result therefrom. But it has not otherwise discussed the points raised by the petitioner in his written memorandum dated 12-7-1977. As I have already pointed out, neither the petitioner nor respondents 3, 4 and 5 appeared to have been heard in person. ( 4 ) AN application made under Sec. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms act (hereinafter referred to as the act) involves serious questions of rights of tenants and is not a matter which should be lightly dealt with by the Land Tribunal by mere persual of records. The scheme of the Act is such that the Tribunal should make all efforts to identify the tenants on the relevant date namely, the date of the application as well as any prior dates from which the tenancy is claimed. The scheme of the Act is such that the Tribunal should make all efforts to identify the tenants on the relevant date namely, the date of the application as well as any prior dates from which the tenancy is claimed. Even if there was a plea by the landlord that the petitioner-applicant's father had been dispossessed in the year 1967, it was not conclusive proof that on a date thereafter the petitioner was not in possession and cultivation of the lands in question. It is a matter which the Tribunal ought to have examined more carefully after inviting evidence from bath the parties before it. The Tribunal having failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it, i am of the view that the impugned order is not tenable and is therefore liable, to be set aside. ( 5 ) IT is seen from the written, memorandum of the petitioner bearing the date 12-7-1977 that he has made (numerous representations to the revenue Authorities to correct the revenue records in accordance with the actual existing facts but no action appears to have been taken on those applications. There is evidence that several letters have been addressed to the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner in this behalf. The Tashildar of the, Taluk being the Ex-Officio secretary 01 the Tribunal while processing an application to be brought up before the Tribunal is required to examine the application in all its detail and only thereafter, the Tribunal can proceed to investigate the claims of an applicant with reference to any objections thereto. As already mentioned, the impugned order, ex facie, presents a picture of the order having been passed without any oral hearing of the parties. ( 6 ) THE matter is remanded to the tribunal for disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce such oral and documentary evidence in regard to the question of possession of the lands in question on the date the application under Sec. 48-A of the Act was made. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons, rule is made absolute, the impugned order is set aside with a direction, to the 2nd respondent-Tribunal to issue notice to the parties a fresh and consider the application of the petitioner after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in the matter of their claims and counter claims relating to the lands in question. Shri I. G. Gachchinamath learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has been heard. The respondents' Counsel has not been present at the time of hearing of this writ petition. Therefore, the the respondents: have been placed ex parte and this order is made in that circumstance. The State Government, however, has been represented by shri N. Y. Hanumanthappa, learned government Advocate. ( 8 ) IN the light of the qrder passed by me in W. P. No. 9310|1977, R. S. A no. 768/1976 will stand over till the tribunal passes an order after remand. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .