N. D. VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) THESE three petitions, jointly filed under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitutution of India are directed against two orders, one dated 21. 5. 75 of the Tahsildar, ron. (respondent -4 herein) passed in case No. KLR. SR. 1 (Ex. A) on his file, and the other, dated 10. 5. 76 of the Assistant Commissioner,. Gadag, (Respondent 3) passed in Case No. KLR AP-1j75 and KLR. SR. 7j75 (Ex. C) on his file. By his order, Ex. C, the Asssistant Commissioner has confirmed the order of the Tahsildar, Ron, ex. A. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent, who is the owner of several items of agricultural lands situated in village Kuravina- koppa, Taluka Ron, fully described at ex. A sought resumption of the same, under S. 14 of. the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1961 (the Act) as it stood prior to its amendment by Karnataka, act No. 1 of 1974. Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974, which came into force on 1. 3. 74, introduced several changes in the Act, one of them being the deletion of S. 14 of the Act. S. 14 provided for resumption by the landlords of their lands under lease under certain terms and conditions stipulated in, that provision. Prior to 1. 3. 74 the Munsiffs of the State Judicial Service had been constituted into Tribunals and had been conferred with jurisdiction to deal with certain matters and disputes arising under the Act. On the coming into force of Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974 these Tribunals were abolished and other statutory bodies and authorities were created to deal with different aspects of disputes and questions arising under the Act. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the lands referred to above have been under the cultivation of these petitioners and the 2nd respondent, Muktumsab imamsab Pinjar, as lessees. When karnataka Act No. 1/74 came into force the claim of the 1st respondent under S. 14 was still pending before the Land Tribunal, Ron. He appears to have transferred those claims to the file of the Tahsildar Ron. (Rep- pondent 4) purporting to act under sub-section, (3) (a) of Section 91 of the Karnataka; Act No. 1/74. Thus, assuming jurisdiction to deal with, these matters the 4th respondent proceeded to hear the parties. He appears to have transferred those claims to the file of the Tahsildar Ron. (Rep- pondent 4) purporting to act under sub-section, (3) (a) of Section 91 of the Karnataka; Act No. 1/74. Thus, assuming jurisdiction to deal with, these matters the 4th respondent proceeded to hear the parties. He appears to have recorded some statements, heard the concerned, and held that the 1st respondent, who was the claimant before him, was a soldier and as such was entitled to resume, the. entire extent of lands under the cultivation of these tenants, under Section 15 of the act. It is this order that has been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner as referred to above. ( 4 ) THE tenants, while resisting the claim before the Tahsildar, had contended that the leases in question were not leases either created or continued that under. S. 5 of the Act, that the landlord had also not issued to them any notice as contem- plated under sub-sec. (2) of S. 15 of the Act; and that, in the circumstances, the claims for resumption were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed. The Tahsildar over-ruled all these objections and directed them to deliver vacant possession of the lands, of which they were cultivating as lessees, by a certain date fixed by him in the impugned order. ( 5 ) ATTACKING the validity of the orders in question the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted as follows: that the leases in question were not leases created or continued under S. 5 of the Act; that the claims for resumption dealt with by the Tahsildar had not been properly laid before him in accordance with law; that the landlord had also not issued any statutory notice to any of these tenants; that his clients, claiming. occupancy rights under S. 48a of the Act re: these very lands, had filed applications in form no. 7 in tne Land Tribunal, Ron, and the same is pending enquiry therein; and that, in the circumstances, the Tahsildar should have rejected the claims made by the 1st respondent for resumption of these lands. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the leaarned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the impugned orders and submitted that the decision of this Count in venkatachar v. Land Tribunal, K. R. Pet ( (1980) 1 Kar. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the leaarned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the impugned orders and submitted that the decision of this Count in venkatachar v. Land Tribunal, K. R. Pet ( (1980) 1 Kar. L. J. 232,)a decision on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that when claims arising under S. 48a of the Act are pending in the Tribunal, the Tahsildar should not have proceeded with the claims of the landlord arising under Sec. 15 till claims pending in the tribunal are finally disposed of, requires reconsideration ( 7 ) IT may be noted at this srtage that it is only Pavadappa Yellappa haraji, predecessor-in interest of the petitioners 1a to 1c in W. P. No. 5173/ 76, and Fakirappa Meti, predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners 1 to 7 in W. P. No. 5175 of 1976-had filed their claims for occupancy rights in form No. 7 under S. 48a of the Act within the time stipulated and they have been pending. Hanumantappa sakrappa Pujar, petitioner in W. P. No. 5174 of 1976 also is said to have- filed form No. 7 re. the lands under his cultivation in the said Tribunal, but after the expiry of the time stipulated to make such applications. ( 8 ) IN Venkatachar's case (supra) it is observed by this Court that in a case whe,re the tenant had approached the Tribunal with an application in form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in reppect of agricultural. lands under his cultivation as a lessee and if his landlord takes steps under Section 15 of the Act before the Tahsildar for resumption of those lands, the tahsildar should await the final decision of the Tribunal and decide the claim arising before him only after the tribunal disposes of the claim of the tenant and in the light of the orders of the Tribunal. Counsel for the 1st respondent says that this decision requires reconsideration. He says that there was no need for the Tahsildar to await the decision of the Tribunal, and that the Tahsildar himself is vested with powers to go into the dispute whether the lease in question was one created or continued under S. 5 of the Act. ( 9 ) UNDER 3. He says that there was no need for the Tahsildar to await the decision of the Tribunal, and that the Tahsildar himself is vested with powers to go into the dispute whether the lease in question was one created or continued under S. 5 of the Act. ( 9 ) UNDER 3. 44 of the Act "all lands held by or in the possession of the tenants (including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued) immediately prior to the commencement of the Amendment act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted under S. 5" stood transferred and vested in, the state Government with effect from 1. 3. 74. In the case of all such lands tenants are entitled to be registered as occupants and for this purpose they are required to make applications in form No. 7 as provided in S. 48a. Such applications they have to make within the time stipulated in sub-sec. (1) of Section 48a before -the. Tribunals constituted under S. 48 of the Act. In all such cases the questions that arise for determination by the Tribuna would be whether the lands involved were lands vested in the State Government as provided in Sec. 44, and if the answer to that question were to be in the affirmative, then the next question that falls for decision is whether the person or persons, claiming occupancy rights were tenants as on the date of vesting, cultivating the said lands personally. In this connection a Full bench decision of this Court in Balesha rama Khot v. Land Tribunal, Chikodi ( (1978) 1 Kar. L. J. 116.) may be seen. If, in a given case arising under S. 48a of the Act, a question arises before the Tribunal as to whether the lease involved therein was one created or continued under s. 5 that question also is required to be decided by the Tribunal. ( 10 ) NOW, while. urging that the tahsildar also hasjurisdiction to decide the question whether a lease, in a given case, is one created or continued under s. 5 of the Act, counsel for the first respondent took me through s. 112 of the Act. S. 112 (A) enumerates the duties of- the Tahsildar. ( 10 ) NOW, while. urging that the tahsildar also hasjurisdiction to decide the question whether a lease, in a given case, is one created or continued under s. 5 of the Act, counsel for the first respondent took me through s. 112 of the Act. S. 112 (A) enumerates the duties of- the Tahsildar. The only clause that deals with his powers under S. 15 of the Act is Clause (c) and it reads as follows: - 112. Duties of Tahsildar and tribunal: (A) Duties of Tahsildar- (a ). . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . (c) to declare the vesting in the state Government of the lands referred to in sub-section (6) of section 15 or Sec. 20. ( 11 ) NOW, Sec. 15 may be noted:"15. Resumption of Land by Soldier or Seaman.- (1) A soldier or a seaman who has created or continued a lease in accordance with the provisions of s. 5 shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to resume land to the extent of the ceiling area whether his tenant is a protected tenant or not. (2) The soldier or the seaman shall, if he bona fide requires the land to cultivate personally, issue a notice to the tenant requiring him to deliver possession of the land within the period specified in the notice, which shall not be less than the prescribed period. (3) The notice referred to in subsection (2) shall be given,- (i) in the case of a soldier in service in the Armed Forces of the union, within one year from the date on -which he is released from the Armed Forces or is sent to the reserve; (ii) in the case of father, mother spouse, child or grand-child, of a soldier within, one year from the date of death of such soldier; and (iii) in the case of a seaman, within one year from the date on which he ceases to be a seaman. (4) If the tenant fails to. (4) If the tenant fails to. deliver possession of the- land within the period specified in the notice, the soldier or the seaman may make an application to the Tahsildar within whose jurisdiction the greater par of the land is situated, furnishing the prescribed particulars for eviction of the tenant and delivery of possession of the land; (5) On receipt of such application the Tahsildar shall issue a notice to the tenant calling upon him to deliver possession of the land to the soldier or seaman within such time as may be specified in the notice, and if the tenant fails to comply, the Tahsildar may summarily evict the tenant and deliver possession of the land to the soldier or the seaman (6) Where the Tahsildar, on application by the tenant or otherwise and after such enquiry as may be prescribed, is satisfied that a notice as required by sub-section (2) is not issued, he shall, by notification, declare that with effect from such date as may be specified in the notifi- cation the land lesased shall stand transferred to and vest in the S)tate government free from all encum- brances. The Tahsildar may take possession of the land in the pres- cribed manner and the tenant shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant thereof. The provisions of Sec. 45 shall mutatis mutandis apply in this behalf. "though, while enumerating the duties of the Tahsildar, S. 112a speaks of his powers only under sub-sec. (6) of section 15, it cannot be said that the Tahsildar lacks powers or juris- diction to deal with an application made by a soldier or a seaman for resumption of the land, the lease of which was created or continued under Section 5 of the Act. The tahsildar does have such powers under sub-sec. (5) of S. 15 to deal with such a, claim, but it is relevant to note that sec. 15 does not provide for or con- template any elaborate inquiry on such claims. However, it is fair to assume that if, in a given case, it is raised that the lease was not one created or continued under S. 5 the Tahsildar may have to go into tha,t question since that involves his very jurisdiction to deal with the claim. However, it is fair to assume that if, in a given case, it is raised that the lease was not one created or continued under S. 5 the Tahsildar may have to go into tha,t question since that involves his very jurisdiction to deal with the claim. He may also have to consider as to whether prior notice had been Issued by the landlord as required by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 15 before calling upon the tenants to deliver vacant possession of the lands. Any enquiry by the Tahsildar to find out as to whether a lease or tenancy was one created or continued under S. 5 need not be an elaborate one. Under s. 5 of the Act such a lease or leases created by a soldier or a seaman either Awhile he was serving as such or within three months before he became a soldier or a seaman shall have to be evidenced in writing. These are statutory requirements of S. 5, beyond this it is not for him to say if the lands involved in that proceeding before him were lands vested in the state Government under S. 44 of the act, more s^> in a, case where claims for occupancy rights in respect of the very lands made to the tribunal are pending therein. In this latter class of cases it is for the Tribunal to decide the aforesaid question. Taking all these facts into consideration it was observed by this Court in Venkatachar's case (supra) that if an application filed by the tenant is pending in the tribunal, the Tahsildar will have to stop the proceeding commenced before him under S. 15 involving the very lands and has to dispose of the claim only after final orders are made by the Tribunal. Reference is made to clause (c) of S. 112a under which provision the Tahsildar is empowered to act under sub-section (6) of S. 15. As is clear from what is extracted above that provision only deals with a case where a soldier or a seaman fails to issue a notice to his tenant as required by sub-sec. (2) of S. 15. If the tahsildar finds that such a statutory notice had not been issued by the soldier or a seaman such land stand* transferred and vests in the Staff* government. Vesting contemplated here relates only to this limited class of cases. (2) of S. 15. If the tahsildar finds that such a statutory notice had not been issued by the soldier or a seaman such land stand* transferred and vests in the Staff* government. Vesting contemplated here relates only to this limited class of cases. In the circumstances and for the reasons already stated Venkata^ char's case does not require any reconsideration. ( 12 ) THE ratio in Venkatachar's case applies on all fours to the claims relating to the lands under cultivation of the petitioners in W. P. No. 5173 and 5175 of 1976. In their cases the Tah- sildar is required to keep the claims of the 1st respondent pending awaiting final orders by the Land Tribunal. In the remaining case - claim relating to the lands under the cultivation of the petitioner in W. P. No. 5174 of 1976 the Tahsildar will have to see if the tenant, Hanmantappa sakrappa Pujar, had not1 filed any form no. 7 in the Land Tribunal in accord- ance with law. On enquiry if he is satisfied that no such claim made by hanmantappa is pending in the Tri- bunal, the Tahsildar may proceed with the enquiry and dispose of the claim made by the 1st respondent for resum- ing the said lands. In such a situation and if the Tahsildar decides to proceed with the enquiry into this claim against harimantappa, the questions that may arise for decision in the light of rival contentions raised now would be: (i) whether the claim, having arisen before him on being transferred from the former Tribunal Munsiff of a proceeding pending before that autho- rity under Sec. 14, was maintainable, it (the proceeding) not having been properly initiated under S. 15 of the act; (11) Is that a lease created or continued under Section 5? (iii) Is the claim barred for want of statutory notice under Sec. 15? and (iv) whether any order is required to be made under sub-sec. (6) of S. 15 of the Act? ( 13 ) IN the circumstances and for the reasons mentioned above both the orders impugned here are unsustain- able and deserve to be quashed. There- fore, these three writ petitions are allowed; the rules issued are made absolute; and the two orders, Annexures 'a' and 'c' are hereby quashed. (6) of S. 15 of the Act? ( 13 ) IN the circumstances and for the reasons mentioned above both the orders impugned here are unsustain- able and deserve to be quashed. There- fore, these three writ petitions are allowed; the rules issued are made absolute; and the two orders, Annexures 'a' and 'c' are hereby quashed. The matters involved in these cases are remitted to the 4th respondent for disposal according to law in the light of the observations made above. ( 14 ) LET a copy of this order be sent to the Land Tribunal, Ron. No Costs. --- *** --- .