SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH the order of the Land Tribunal is of the year 1981, the same is challenged in the year 1987. The petitioners have asserted in the Writ Petition that they were not given proper opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal and the statement of the first petitioner was wrongly recorded by the Land Tribunal. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the order of the Land Tribunal, the petitioners were not the tenants, but took the land on mortgage. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . . ( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that the owners of the land have not filed any objections as contemplated in Section 48-A (4) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioners have filed their Form no. 7 application in the year 1974. Section 48a (3) provides: " (3) The form of the application, the form of the notices, the manner of publishing or serving the notices and all other matters connected there with shall be such as may be prescribed. The tribunal may for valid and sufficient reasons permit the tenant to amend the application. " section 48a (4) states: " (4) Where no objection is filed, the Tribunal may, after such verification as it considers necessary, by order, either grant or reject the application. " Section 48a (5) states: " (5) Where an objection is filed disputing the validity of the applicant's claim or setting up a rival claim, the Tribunal shall, after enquiry, determine, by order, the person entitled to be registered as occupant and pass orders accordingly. " A reading of the above provisions clearly indicates the procedure to be followed by the tribunal. If the person, who disputes the claim of the applicant does not file any objection, there is no compulsion for the Tribunal to hold any enquiry at all. All that is required is the verification, which the Tribunal deems it necessary for the purpose of granting or rejecting the application. The elaborate enquiry to be conducted is only when objection is filed by any one disputing the validity the applicant's claim. The Legislature obviously expressed its intention that the objector will have to present his objection as otherwise, it will be unnecessary for the tribunal to embark upon on an elaborate enquiry. The elaborate enquiry to be conducted is only when objection is filed by any one disputing the validity the applicant's claim. The Legislature obviously expressed its intention that the objector will have to present his objection as otherwise, it will be unnecessary for the tribunal to embark upon on an elaborate enquiry. ( 4 ) IN the present case, there is nothing on record for the Tribunal to infer that the petitioner took the land in question on mortgage especially when the owner of the land did not dispute the claim of the petitioner under Form No. 7. Prima facie, there is much force in the contention of the petitioners that the statement was not properly recorded when the claim of the petitioner is corroborated by the entries in the record of rights. The averment in the Writ Petition that the petitioner was misled by the statement that he will be informed of the order is also not denied by any pleadings in this Court. ( 5 ) I am deciding the points raised before me only at the stage of preliminary hearing and on the basis of the prima facie material available and in the background of the provisions of Section 48a (4) (5) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Normally, it is not possible to upset the recording of evidence by the Land Tribunal without procedural irregularity in the matter of recording evidence being pointed out. It is not possible to decide exactly whether the recording of the evidence was proper or not. By issuing the Rule nisi, the matter will be unnecessarily kept pending in this Court for some more time. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing, I am of the view that the interest of justice will be met by sending back the matter to the Appellate Authority, which shall examine the questions raised in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein. The matter shall stand transmitted to the appellate Authority, Dharwar.