( 1 ) BY consent of learned Counsel, this appeal is treated as having been posted for hearing and we have heard them. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is from the order of Bhimiah J. , dismissing WP. No. 10438 of 1980. The petitioner therein has presented this appeal and for the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to according to their respective positions in the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner had made an application under S. 48-A (1) of the Karna- taka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the land Tribunal, Periyapatna, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), for grant of occupancy right in respect of the land bearing S. No. 295-A in Navilooru village periyapatna Taluk, In that application he had shown the names of both respondents 3 and 4 as his landlords and notices had been issued to them on that footing. When the Tribunal went for spot inspection, Basappa, son of respondent-4, appeared before the Tribunal and made a statement that the petitioner was merely an encroacher of an area of 2 acres in the land belonging to his (Basappa's) father and that no lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner. Neither before nor after such spot inspection, the petitioner was given an opportunity to substantiate his claim in his application. However, the Tribunal relied solely on the statement of respondent-4's son and made an order dismissing the petitioner's application holding, inter alia, that he was not a tenant, but an encroacher of the disputed land, and that hence the question of granting him occupancy right did not arise. ( 4 ) THAT order of the Tribunal had been impugned in the writ petition. The learned single Judge declined to interfere with that order and dismissed the writ petition. He held that as no objection had been filed by respondents 3 and 4 to the petitioner's application under S. 48-A (1) of the Act, it was open to the Tribunal to reject the petitioner's application merely by verification of records as provided in sub-section (4) of S. 48-A. ( 5 ) IN this appeal, Sri Ravivarma kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant petitioner, contended that the learned single Judge was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application without affording an opportunity to him to substantiate his claim. In other words, the contention of Sri Ravivarma Kumar was that sub-section (4) of S. 48-A does not empower the Tribunal to dismiss an application made under sub-section (1) of that section merely on the basis of verification of revenue records and without affording the applicant adequate opportunity of substantiating his claim. ( 6 ) SUB-SECTION (4) of S. 48-A of the act, reads ; (4) Where no objection is filed the Tribunal may, after such verification as it considers necessary, by order either grant or reject the application. ( 7 ) THE scheme of the provisions in s. 48-A is, in our opinion as follows : when an application is made under subsection (1) of that section for grant of occupancy right in respect of a land, notices have to be served on the landlord and all other persons interested in such land with a view to give them an opportunity to file objection to the claim in that application. If the landlord or such other persons, though served with notices do not file any objection to such claim, how the Tribunal has to proceed with that application, is provided in sub-section (4 ). That sub-section empowers the Tribunal to reject an application even if no objection is filed thereto. In other words, the tribunal is not bound to allow an application and grant the occupancy right claimed therein merely because objection was not filed to such application. After such verification of the records and considering the evidence as may be adduced by the applicant, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant has not established his claim, the Tribunal may, and indeed should, reject that application. After such verification of the records and considering the evidence as may be adduced by the applicant, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant has not established his claim, the Tribunal may, and indeed should, reject that application. If the Tribunal, on such verification of the records, is satisfied that the applicant's claim is established, it (the Tribunal) is empowered to allow the application and grant occupancy right to the applicant without recording his evidence or that of the landlord or of such other persons but, if after such verification of records, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant's claim is established, the Tribunal should give an opportunity to him to sub-stantiate his claim by adducing evidence however, that sub-section, in our opinion, cannot be understood as empowering the Tribunal to dismiss the application on mere verification of records without giving an opportunity to the applicant to substantiate his claim, even where the landlord or such other persons have not filed objections to such application. The legislature could not have intended that in regard to the right of an applicant to adduce evidence in support of his applications, he should be in a worse position where no objection was filed to his application than where objection was filed thereto. That such an intention cannot be attributed to the legislature, is also obvious from the provisions of sub-section (5-A) of that section which provides that where there is no objection in respect of any part of a claim, the Tribunal may at once pass orders granting the application as regards that part and proceed separa- rately in respect of the other part objected to. ( 8 ) THUS, we are unable to agree with the view of the learned single Judge that where no objection is filed to an application under sub-section (1) of S. 48-A of the Act, sub-section (4) of that section empowers the Tribunal to dismiss that application merely on verification of the records and without affording an opportunity to the applicant to substantiate his claim. ( 9 ) IN the present case, as the Tribunal did not afford an opportunity to the applicant to adduce evidence in support of his application, the order of the Tribunal is clearly unsustainable. ( 9 ) IN the present case, as the Tribunal did not afford an opportunity to the applicant to adduce evidence in support of his application, the order of the Tribunal is 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, remit to the tribunal the petitioner's application under S. 48-A (1) of the Act and direct the tribunal to dispose it of afresh after affording him an opportunity to establish his claim. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances of this appeal, we make no orders as to costs. --- *** --- .