( 1 ) CHICKVEERAPPA has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Single judge of this Court dated April 19, 1985 by which Writ Petition No. 9218 of 1981 has been dismissed. ( 2 ) THE appellant and N. Narayanappa, the 2nd respondent, are rival claimants claiming occupancy right regarding Survey No. 56/1 of Devanahalli kasaba in Bangalore district, measuring 2 acres 28 guntas. The Land Tribunal. Devanahalli, has conferred occupancy rights regarding 2 acres out of the land in dispute in favour of N Narayanappa and regarding the remaining 28 guntas in favour of the appellant vide order dated 24-2-1981 (Annexure-N ). The appellant had challenged the legality of the impugned order of the Tribunal before the learned Single Judge. ( 3 ) NO one appears for the contesting respondents. Sri Chandrasekharaiah appears for the State. ( 4 ) WE have heard Sri H. P. Mudlappa, learned Counsel for the appellant and find that in the circumstances of the case, the matter requires to be remitted to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority for deciding the same afresh on merits. Serious allegations of malafide have been made against Respondents 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Surprisingly, Respondents 5, 6, 8 to 10 did not put in appearance before the learned Single Judge nor have they appeared before us. The learned Single judge brushed aside the allegations of malafide against those respondents on the basis of the written statement filed by K. Narayanappa (respondent 7 ). In our view this could not be done without those respondents filing a written statement specifically denying the allegations of malafide made against them. Further, from the original record we find that grave irregularities which go to the root of the matter, have been committed by the Tribunal in conducting the proceedings and such grave irregularities cannot lightly be ignored as that would give a handle to the Tribunals to deal with the matters whimsically without caring for the procedural law. It may be pertinent to observe at this stage, that the Tribunal recorded joint statements of the witnesses, which is not legally permissible. As we look at the whole matter, there is complete non-applicability of mind and callousness have been shown by the chairman as well as the members of the tribunal in conducting the proceedings which has resulted in great injustice to the appellant. As we look at the whole matter, there is complete non-applicability of mind and callousness have been shown by the chairman as well as the members of the tribunal in conducting the proceedings which has resulted in great injustice to the appellant. There can be no gainsaying that it is expected of the Tribunals to follow proper procedure and try to do justice in cases and not to lightly deal with the matters which come up before them for decision. In this view of the matter, we find that the order of the Tribunal has to be set-aside. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we allow the appeal, set-aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 19-4-1985 passed in writ Petition No. 9218 of 1981 and that of the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli, dated 24-2-1981 passed in Case No. 34-74/75 and remit the case to the Land Reforms appellate Authority, for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. The parties shall be allowed by the appellate authority to lead evidence, oral and documentary, if they so desire. The appellate authority shall also express an opinion on the allegations of malafide, if they are raised and plessed by the appellant. ( 6 ) AS the whole procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal was illegal and uncalled for, the appellant is entitled to have his costs which are assessed at Rs. 1000. 00 (Rs. one thousand) which shall be payable by the Chairman and members of the tribunal personally. Writ appeal allowed. --- *** --- .