MIRDHE, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the order passed by the Land tribunal produced at Annexure-A. ( 2 ) I have heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for R-1 and the Additional government Pleader for R-4 and R-5 and perused the records of the case. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed in this case that petitioners-1, 2 and R-1 are the sons of one late puttamallaiah petitioners-1 (a) to 1 (e) are the heirs of petitioner-1. It is also not disputed in this case that Puttamallaiah, father of petitioners-1 and 2 and R-1, was the tenant of the lands in question. The said Puttamallaiah had filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in the lands in question. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of R-1. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioners. ( 4 ) THE main ground for the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in favour of R-1, though the father of petitioners-1 and 2 and R-1 was admittedly the tenant of those lands, is that petitioners- 1 (a) and 2 have given consent for granting occupancy rights in favour of R-1. The relevant observation of the Tribunal is as follows :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . The basis for this order is the alleged letter of consent executed by petitioner-1 (a) and 2. The contention of the petitioners is that they have not given any such consent and the alleged letter or the document produced before the Land Tribunal is obtained by fraud by taking the signatures of petitioners-1 (a) and 2 on blank papers. The Court called for the records and the records have been submitted before this Court for its perusal. I have perused the document which is at page 80 of the Tribunal's file. It is on a stamp paper. It bears the signature of K. Gowramma and one P. Shivanna at the end of the first paper and the second paper also bears the signatures of these persons at the end. The document is a typewritten one. At the end, the phrase. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . is typed and thereafter some blank space is left and the signatures of K. Gowramma and P. Shivanna are found at the fag end. The document is a typewritten one. At the end, the phrase. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . is typed and thereafter some blank space is left and the signatures of K. Gowramma and P. Shivanna are found at the fag end. If really the document is executed by these persons, their signatures would have been immediately below the phrase. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . There was no necessity for these persons to put their signatures some distance away from the phrase. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . From this, it is apparent that the signatures of these persons were taken on blank papers and thereafter this document is prepared. It does not require any extra-ordinary reasoning to come to this decision. A mere look at this document goes to show that the signatures were taken on blank papers and thereafter it came to be typed. Only thing is that R-1 was not able to bring the matter nearer to the signatures in the second page so as to make it appear natural. Looking to this document, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the contention of the petitioners that the signatures of petitioners-1 (a) and 2 were taken on a document which was blank deserves to be accepted. The Tribunal does not seem to have bestowed its attention on this aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order. ( 5 ) THE Counsel for the respondent submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to go into the disputed questions of facts in its Writ jurisdiction. He relied on a Decision in the case of D. L. F. HOUSING CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. v. DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AIR1976 SC 386 , (1976 )3 SCC160 wherein the Supreme Court has held that where the basic facts are disputed and complicated questions of facts depending on evidence are involved, the Writ Court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. He also relied on a Decision in the case of THANSINGH NATHMAL v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES, AIR1964 SC 1419 , [1964 ]6 SCR654 , [1964 ]15 STC468 (SC )wherein the Supreme Court has held that where there is determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish' the right to enforce, which is claimed in the Writ, Writ Jurisdiction cannot be exercised. He also relied on a Decision in the case of sohanlal v. UNION OF INDIA, AIR1957 SC 529 , 1957 (0)BLJR566 , (1957 )35 Myslj~ (NULL ), [1957 ]1 SCR738 wherein the Supreme Court has held that where investigation into the facts, which is more appropriate for a Civil Court, is required,. Writ Jurisdiction should not be exercised. No one can dispute the proposition of law that where the facts are disputed and complicated questions of facts are involved requiring leading of evidence, Writ Jurisdiction cannot be a remedy. But, where it comes to the notice of the High court and where the High Court from the records is convinced that fraud has been practised on the Tribunal, I do not think that the Court will lose its jurisdiction merely on the ground that the person who has committed fraud is denying that he has committed any fraud in the matter. But, as I have pointed out above, a perusal of the document relied upon by the Tribunal itself goes to show that it is a clear case of fraud committed on the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also blindly relied on the document without looking into the document properly. This fraud can be seen to have been practised on the Tribunal by simply looking at the document. Therefore, the contention of the Counsel for R-1 that this Court cannot exercise Writ Jurisdiction in this case cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) THE Counsel for R-1 also submitted that the petitioners have got efficacious alternate remedy of filing a suit claiming their shares. Here there is no question of efficacious remedy available to the petitioners when it is found by the Court that the Tribunal has passed the order on the basis of a document obtained by practising fraud and such an order cannot be sustained in law. ( 7 ) THE Writ Petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to R-4 with a direction to issue notices to all the parties concerned on Form no. 7 filed by Puttamallaiah and by R. 4 and thereafter dispose of the case in accordance with law.