H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) 1. The petitioner is a widow belonging to scheduled Caste and She is the owner of the land in question and it is stated that it is her only source of livelihood. She has a family of 3 sons and 3 daughters and the entire family is dependent on the income arising out of this land. It was purchased by the petitioner's husband when the land was remaining uncultivated. The land was taken by respondent-3 under the scheme of rehabilitation of the displaced holders claiming to be a displaced holder of land having lost the same on account of the submerging resulting from the Bhadra project. According to the petitioner, the land was not given to respondent-3 under any scheme which is intended for grant of land to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is also stated that respondent-3 belongs to tamil Nadu and is indentifiable as a gounder and, therefore, he is not at all a member of the Scheduled Caste. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent-3 is not entitled to any benefit which is extended to members of Scheduled caste in so far as land-grant is concerned. On 16-9-1986 respondent-2 passed an order directing the restoration of the schedule land to respondent-3 and appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by respondent-1 on 23-12-1986. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the question whether respondent-3 belongs to the Gounder community and that he is not a member of the Scheduled Caste has not been gone into by holding an enquiry and that respondent-2 has passed the impugned order which does not throw any light on the question. It is further contended that the order of respondent-2 is devoid of reasons in support of the finding. It is next contended that the appellate authority has not applied his mind nor given a considered finding as to whether respondent-2 has determined whether respondent-3 belongs to the gounder Community. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the orders of both respondents 1 and 2. ( 3 ) THE question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders. ( 4 ) I have gone through the order passed by respondent-2 as well as respondent-1. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the orders of both respondents 1 and 2. ( 3 ) THE question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders. ( 4 ) I have gone through the order passed by respondent-2 as well as respondent-1. The order of respondent-2 does not disclose the application of mind and determination of the point raised by the petitioner that respondent-3 belongs to the Gounder community and not to either Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe. As a matter of fact, there is no finding at all on this question. In order to decide whether respondent-3 is entitled to restoration of land, the condition precedent is the determination of the question whether respondent-3 belongs to Scheduled Caste or scheduled Tribe or is a Gounder in community and it is only them that the question of restoration of the land arises. Unless there is a determination of this basic question after holding an enquiry, it cannot be said that respondent-3 belongs to any particular caste or community. When there is a specific assertion of fact which goes to the root of the matter, it is the duty of the authority charged with the responsibility of administering the special enactment to adopt the necessary procedure for determination of the question and the procedure in the instant case is the procedure of holding an enquiry affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing as well as the opportunity to adduce evidence to all the parties who are likely to be affected. This is more so when the statute itself provides for an enquiry. ( 5 ) UNDER Rule 3 (5) of the Karnataka scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) rules, 1979, it is provided that the Assistant commissioner for the purpose of an enquiry under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 shall follow the procedure for a formal enquiry contemplated under Section 33 of the karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 wherein he shall consider all the objections raised and pass an order giving reasons for his conclusions. This could be characterised as the rule of natural justice reduced into a provision of law. There can be no departure from this procedure. This could be characterised as the rule of natural justice reduced into a provision of law. There can be no departure from this procedure. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT-1 has not troubled himself to go into this aspect of the matter at all. If the order of respondent-2 suffers from such a basic infirmity, it is difficult to support the order of respondent-1 which affirms the order of respondent-2 holding without verified basis that respondent-3 may be belonging to either Adi Dravida or Bovi community. This kind of a finding cannot stand legal scrutiny, ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, rule is issued and made absolute. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The case is remitted back to respondent-2 for a fresh disposal after holding an enquiry and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing together with the opportunity to adduce evidence to all the parties concerned who are likely to be affected by any order that is likely to be passed by respondent- 2. I also direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the case within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .