BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has questioned the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, gulbarga, under Annexure-C as well as the order of the Karnataka Appellate tribunal under Annexure-D. ( 2 ) THE point for consideration iswhether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Special Deputy commissioner. ( 3 ) ANNEXURE-C is the order of thedeputy Commissioner in respect of an application made by the petitioner's maternal grand father for registration of occupancy rights of inam land in Sy. No. 28aa, 319 and 339 of Hunasgi village, Shorapur taluk. The order reads as follows :-"take the lands under Government supervision and close the file. " ( 4 ) AFTER the death of the maternalgrand father, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate tribunal, Bangalore, in appeal No. 595/79 questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 13-5-1975. The petitioner while preferring the appeal also filed an application for condonation of delay. I see from the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has discussed the merits of the case and held that the appeal is not sustainable and later on has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation and that the explanation offered by the appellant therein is unacceptable. ( 5 ) THE order of the Tribunal is firstlyon merits and secondly on the question of condonation of delay. In these circumstances, I have to presume that though the appeal was barred by limitation and the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, yet it is an order passed on merits. Whatever may be the incongruity, the point to be considered is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming a single sentence order passed by the Special Deputy 'commissioner with reference to an application for registration of occupancy rights of inam land. In my opinion, the order of the special Deputy Commissioner is totally devoid of reasons and it is an example of nonspeaking order. The Special Deputy commissioner in the exercise of quasjudicial power has to exercise statutory discretion and the evidence of exercise of statutory discretion will be apparent only if reasons are assigned in support of the finding. In this order of the Special deputy Commissioner, there is neither reason nor finding. The Special Deputy commissioner in the exercise of quasjudicial power has to exercise statutory discretion and the evidence of exercise of statutory discretion will be apparent only if reasons are assigned in support of the finding. In this order of the Special deputy Commissioner, there is neither reason nor finding. The only sentence to be found in the impugned order of the special Deputy Commissioner is "take the lands under Government supervision and close the file". This order could be characterised as arbitrary, capricious and whimsical. It is this order which is confirmed by the Tribunal supplying its own reasons. I do not think the lacuna in the' order of the Special Deputy Commissioner could be filled up by the Tribunal by making amends for the lapses of the Special deputy Commissioner. Hence, I hold that the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable and so also the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, I allowthis writ petition and quash the impugned orders under Annexures 'c' and 'd'. The case is remitted back to the Special deputy Commissioner with a direction to afford a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hold an enquiry so that the petitioner could establish his rights if any by adducing whatever evidence he wants to adduce in support of his case and dispose of the case within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of this order shall be forthwith communicated to the Special deputy Commissioner. Writ petitions allowed. --- *** --- .