H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) BY virtue of the registered sale deed executed on 31-1-79 by the third respondent, the petitioners had become the owners of lands measuring a total extent of 24 acres 21 guntas situated in Coove village, Belur Hobli, mudigere Taluk, Chickmagalur District. The following particulars show the survey numbers and the extent of lands so purchased: (1) Sy. No. 74- Wet land measuring 6 A-23 gts. (2) Sy. No. 75- Wet land measuring 3 A-07 gts. (3) Sy. No. 76- Coffee Land measuring 9a-28 gts. (4) Sy. No. 292- Dry Land measuring 5 A-03 gts. Total 24 A-21 gts. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been in actual possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the lands ever since the date of purchase. Apart from the lands sold to the petitioners the vendor of the petitioners who is respondent No. 3 herein retained certain extents of land. The mutation register produced by the petitioners under annexure 'b' bear out the facts aforestated. ( 2 ) THE trouble began when the third respondent gave a declaration on 27-12-74 prior to the execution of the sale deed on 31- 1-79 in favour of the petitioners as required under Section 66 and 69 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act in the prescribed form no. 11 showing the total extent of holdings held by the third respondent and his family as on 18-11-67, 24-1-71, and after 24-1-71 before the Special Tahsildar, Mudigere taluk, Mudigere. Copy of the declaration is annexure-'c. The real mischief arose when respondent 'no. 1 passed an order on the basis of the report submitted by the Special tahsildar dated 12-10-82 holding that the third respondent and the members of his family cannot hold more than one share of 54 acres of 'd' class land and that an extent of 24 acres 39 guntas of `d' class land exceeds the ceiling limits and therefore action should be taken to divest the third respondent of the possession of the excess lands on behalf of the Government, after initiating necessary proceedings with due communication to the concerned authority under Section 83 of the act. In so far as the third respondent is concerned no damage to his rights was caused because he had already parted with the land in question in favour of the petitioners under the sale deed dated 31-1-79 subsequent to the declaration given by the third respondent under the Act. However, it is not clear as to why the petitioner had no knowledge of the prior declaration nor why the third respondent did not inform the petitioners that such a declaration had been filed. ( 3 ) IN the context of the above facts, the question for consideration is whether the impugned action under annexure-'d' is illegal having been passed without notice to the petitioners who happened to be the purchasers from the third respondent under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration as bona fide purchaser. ( 4 ) IN so far as the declaration made by the third respondent before the sale is concerned, it is in accordance with the requirement of Section 66 of the Act. However, under Section 67 of the Act there is a statutory obligation imposed on the Tahsildar to verify the particulars contained in the declaration regarding the survey number and the extent of land. Thereafter he has to determine to which category the land belongs and then proceed to place the declaration along with the connected records before the Tribunal. It is significant to note that under Section 67 (l) (b) of the Act the tribunal is duty bound to determine the extent of the holding and the area by which such extent exceeds the ceiling area after such enquiry as may be prescribed. The provisions relating to the enquiry to be held by the Tahsildar ought to be found in rule 24 of the Rules. Rule 24 envisages that on receipt of the declaration under Section 66 of the Act, the Tahsildar shall verify the correctness of the particulars furnished therein with reference to the entries in the record of rights, other documents, if any, produced and by making such local enquiry and inspection as he considers necessary, either by himself or through any officer of the Revenue department not lower in rank than a revenue Inspector. It is also provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 that the Tribunal may pass an order rejecting land proposed to be surrendered on the grounds enumerated therein. It is also provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 that the Tribunal may pass an order rejecting land proposed to be surrendered on the grounds enumerated therein. ( 5 ) IT is clear from the said provisions that it is mandatory that an enquiry should be held by the Tribunal after a report is submitted by the Tahsildar along with the connected records. The impugned order of the tribunal was passed on 12-10-82 which is subsequent to the transfer of ownership by the third respondent to the petitioners under the registered sale deed dated 31-1-79. There can be no dispute about the fact that the petitioners were not in the picture at all when the Tahsildar submitted his report to the Tribunal. Similar situation prevailed even when the Tribunal came to pass the impugned order. In other words the petitioners had absolutely no knowledge of the proceedings even subsequent to the sale of the lands effected by the third respondent in favour of the petitioners. Under Section 83 of the Act the prescribed authority after summary inquiry shall determine whether the transactions reported to it under Section 82 or coming to its notice in any Other manner is in contravention of the provisions of this Act and make a declaration accordingly. Section 82 contemplates that every village Officer and every officer of the Revenue, Registration and Land Records Department shall report to the prescribed authority every transaction in respect of any land in contravention of any of the provisions of this act, which, comes to the notice of such officer. ( 6 ) IT was pointed out by the learned government Advocate that in the report submitted by the Tahsildar there is a reference to the fact of the sale effected by the third respondent in favour of the petitioners. However, there is no material on record to show that the requirements of section 83 was complied with by the prescribed authority. In short there is no evidence of summary inquiry having been conducted at all proceeding the order of the tribunal which is challenged in this writ petition. Similarly there is nothing on record show that an inquiry involving the petitioners was held before the impugned order of the tribunal was passed nor an opportunity was given to the petitioners by the Tahsildar before submitting his report. Similarly there is nothing on record show that an inquiry involving the petitioners was held before the impugned order of the tribunal was passed nor an opportunity was given to the petitioners by the Tahsildar before submitting his report. ( 7 ) UNLESS the sale transaction dated 31-1-79 is proved and held as an illegal transaction contravening the provisions of the Act, it cannot be a presumption that could be taken for granted. The requirements of law are mandatory and they are bound to be complied with by the prescribed authority as otherwise it would be contravening the will of the Legislature and further would militate against the very scheme of the Act. The further fact that various factors have to be taken into consideration before deciding whether the holder of the land is having land in excess of the ceiling limit should be an eye- opener to the prescribed authority for the purpose of exercising the care and caution which the act itself commends. ( 8 ) IT is not necessary for me to give a finding as to whether or not the sale transaction dated 31-1-79 is valid and it is also unnecessary for me to give a finding on the question whether the petitioners are in possession of excess of land over and above the limits defined in the Act. However, it is necessary to decide whether the principles of natural justice have been complied with by the prescribed authority before passing the impugned order. ( 9 ) WHETHER for the purpose of Section 83 or for the purpose of Section 66 and 67 of the act, it is imperative that a notice should be served on the persons whose rights in respect of their lands are likely to be affected, before any action is taken by the prescribed authority. The said principle is applicable with equal force to the case of the petitioners. ( 10 ) IN the case of Thomas D'castelino v special Deputy Commissioner (ILR 1988 Kar 2936.) I have taken the view," Any factual determination at the time of spot inspection (to be held in accordance with the requirements of natural justice) cannot be in the absence of the person likely to be affected particularly when the special Deputy Commissioner is acting as a Judge in his own cause. . . what is contemplated is fairplay in action. . . what is contemplated is fairplay in action. (ii) Mere personal hearing does not constitute, a fulfilment of an enquiry. Under Section 8 (4) of the. Act, the legislative dictum is that the Competent authority shall duly consider any objection received and after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it deems fit. The expression 'pass such orders as it deems fit does not confer upon the competent Authority an unbridled power or unfettered discretion. " ( 11 ) IT is no doubt true that these principles were laid down while considering the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976. However, particularly since the determination made by the tribunal in regard to the excess land is final, it is all the more necessary that there should be statutory check and balance regulating the disposal of the competing interest. The object of the Act is not to take over lands indiscriminately, but to exercise the care which the Legislature intended under the provisions of the Act providing the statutory safeguard to the owners of the land against arbitrary annexation of the land by the prescribed authority. The power vested in such authorities which are likely to affect the rights of the citizens ought to be exercised in accordance with natural justice particularly since the statutory power invested in a public authority or the public official is to be validly and properly exercised, it cannot be gainsaid that while affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners at an enquiry to be held disputed and contested questions of fact may arise which require careful determination lest there happens a miscarriage of justice, if there is a duty to act judicially when property right is in danger and such a duty is a concomitant of the system of fair administrative process. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I pass the following order. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order under Annexure `d' is hereby quashed. However, it is open to the prescribed authority to proceed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing with liberty to adduce evidence at an enquiry to be held both by the tahsildar and the Tribunal expeditiously. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. --- *** --- .