VENATACHLA, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of learned Counsel, this appeal was treated as having been posted for hearing and we heard them ( 2 ) THIS appeal is from the order of Venkatesh, J. , dismissing W. P. 579 of 1980. The petitioners therein have presented this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to according to their respective positions in the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioners had made an application under S. 48-A of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), before the Land Tribunal, Ramanagaram (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), claiming occupancy rights in respect of 18 guntas and one acre 19 guntas of lands in Sy. Nos. 130/1c and 130/2a respectively of banandur village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, belonging to respondent-3. In a summary enquiry held by the Tribunal on that application, oral evidence of parties and their witnesses was recorded. On a consideration of such evidence, the Tribunal rejected that application by its order dated. 20-6-79. ( 4 ) THAT order had been impugned in the writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the order of the Tribunal based purely on appreciation of evidence, did not call for interference. ( 5 ) IN this appeal, Shri T. R. Subbanna, learned Counsel for the appellants- petitioners, submitted that the oral evidence on which the tribunal had based its order, had not been recorded by the Chairman of the Tribunal and that hence that order was unsustainable. ( 6 ) SHRI C. Nagaraj, learned Counsel for respondent-3, did not dispute that the oral evidence (statements) of parties and their witnesses before the Tribunal had not been recorded by its Chairman. ( 7 ) RULE 17 of the Karnataka Land reforms Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as amended by the Karnataka Land reforms (Third Amendment) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the amendment Rules'), reads:"17. Procedure, to be followed by the Tribunal- (1) The Tribunal shall, in respect of applications made to it follow the same procedure as specified for a summary enquiry under Section 34 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964. . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . A brief summary of the evidence given by each witness shall be recorded by the Chairman. . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . A brief summary of the evidence given by each witness shall be recorded by the Chairman. " s. 34 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue Act') reads: "34. Summary inquiry.- the officer conducting inquiry shall himself, as such inquiry proceeds, record in his own hand. . . . . . the summary of the evidence. . . . . " ( 8 ) RULE 17 of the Rules (renumbered as sub-rule (1) by the Amendment rules) required the Tribunal to decide an application made before it by following the procedure specified for a summary enquiry under S. 34 of the Revenue Act. S. 34 mandates that the officer conducting enquiry shall himself record in his own hand, the summary of the evidence. This court, having regard to the requirement of Rule 17 read with S. 34 of the Revenue Act, ruled in several cases that the summary of the evidence in an enquiry before the tribunal, shall be recorded by its Chairman and, in our view, rightly. By the amendment Rules, which came into force on 2-11-1979, Rule 17 was renumbered as sub-rule (1) and among others, sub-rule (5) was inserted. In our view, sub-rule (5) so inserted while retaining Rule 17, has given statutory recognition to the aforesaid rulings of this Court, by declaring that a brief summary of the evidence of each witness shall be recorded by the Chairman. Thus, in the matter of the recording of oral evidence by the chairman, the requirement of Rule 17 of the Rules both before and after insertion of sub-rule (5), has been, in our view, mandatory. Hence, it follows that any breach of such mandatory requirement vitiates the proceeding before the Tribunal. ( 9 ) IN the present case, as the oral evidence had been recorded by a person other than the Chairman of the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition based on such evidence, stands vitiated and becomes clearly unsustainable. ( 10 ) IN the result, we allow this appeal, reverse the order of the learned single Judge, allow the writ petition, quash the order impugned therein and remit to the Tribunal the petitioners' application under section 48-A of the Act for a fresh disposal after recording evidence in accordance with law. ( 10 ) IN the result, we allow this appeal, reverse the order of the learned single Judge, allow the writ petition, quash the order impugned therein and remit to the Tribunal the petitioners' application under section 48-A of the Act for a fresh disposal after recording evidence in accordance with law. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, in the circumstances of this appeal, we make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .