B. S. SREENIVASA RAO, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and the learned government pleader for respondents 1 and 2. ( 2 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the land tribunal, jamkhandi, district bijapur in Karnataka land reforms sr. 11 and 34 (naganur), dated 21-4-1989. ( 3 ) THE petitioner and respondent 4 are owners of land bearing sy. No. 3/4 measuring 8 acres 25 guntas of naganur village in jamkhandi taluk, bijapur district. As per the contentions of the petitioner, the land is under personal cultivation by him on behalf of respondent 4. The land tribunal, jamkhandi by its order dated 21-4-1989 granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the land reforms appellate authority, bijapur in l. r. a, No. 107 of 1989. During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, respondent 2 abolished the land reforms appellate authority and the petition has been treated as writ petition which was filed in c. p. No. 1565 of 1991 and the prayer is to quash the order passed by the land tribunal, jamkhandi dated 21-4-1989. ( 4 ) IT has been seriously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entry in the name of respondent 3 as 'cultivator' for 1973-74 is without any basis and there is no corresponding mutation entry in respect of the same and the same has been done without notice to the petitioner. It has also been contended that the decisions in original suit No. 113 of 1965 and r. a. No. 39 of 1967 are not binding on the petitioner as there is no notice of the same to him. No authenticated copies of the judgment, order and statements were produced before the land tribunal. Further, it has been contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy. The land tribunal has passed the order on 21-4-1989 conferring occupancy right with respect to sy. No. 3/4 in favour of respondent 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding of the land tribunal is mainly on the judgment of the munsiff's court and without considering the other factors. The tribunal has passed the order taking into account the revenue documents. No. 3/4 in favour of respondent 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding of the land tribunal is mainly on the judgment of the munsiff's court and without considering the other factors. The tribunal has passed the order taking into account the revenue documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in karibasappa sivalingappa nalawadad (deceased) by l. rs. V tirukappa nagappa sortur , wherein it has been held that the question whether a particular person is a tenant or not is to be decided not by the civil court but by the land tribunal concerned. If a question arises as to whether a particular person is a tenant or not in any suit or a proceeding, the court is required to refer that issue to the concerned land tribunal for its decision and stay the proceedings till it receives the finding of the land tribunal on that point to dispose of the suit in the light of that finding. There is no dispute with respect to the principle enunciated in the above decision. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision in Belliappa and others v Muthanna and others , wherein it has been held that the duties of the tahsildar are that notice of enquiry should be given to the concerned and recording of evidence under Section 48-a of the Karnataka land reforms act. The tribunal, before passing the Order, has to satisfy the following ingredients viz. , nature of the claim made by one or the other party in respect of the land and the objections of the contesting party and the nature of objections for such claim; the points that have arisen for determination by the tribunal; the evidence adduced by the parties in support of the claim or against it and why the tribunal prefers the evidence of the one party as against that of the order; the evidence or the reasons, if any, which has made it to reach the conclusion that presumption arising from entries in the record of rights and pahanies and whether they have been rebutted in a given case; the considered reasons for taking a particular view on a point of fact or of law. ( 6 ) IN the above decision, it has been held that the entire proceedings held by the tribunal culminating in the impugned order would demonstrate that the tribunal has not bothered to discharge its functions according to law and principles of justice and fairplay. As the proceedings and the orders of the tribunal are made in gross violation of the requirements of law, they cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, they are quashed and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is directed to deal with the application filed by the respondent under Section 48-a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 afresh in accordance with law and dispose of the matter. ( 7 ) HAVING in view the principles enunciated in the above decision in the present case on hand, it is to be seen whether the order passed by the tribunal suffers from the infirmities as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main contention of the learned counsel is that the finding with respect to the land bearing sy. No. 3/4 is based on the judgment passed in original suit in which the petitioner was not a party and that judgment is not binding upon the petitioner. It is to be noted in the present case that the tribunal has passed a detailed order considering every aspect of the case, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the contention of the person in whose name the occupancy right has been conferred. ( 8 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for respondent 3 that the father of respondent 3 was personally cultivating the land until his death. Subsequently, respondent 3 has been cultivating the land. The landlords filed original suit No. 113 of 1965 before the munsiff, chikodi. In that case, respondent 3 has been held that he is the tenant and fatima the 4th respondent has been declared as owner. It is also contended by the learned counsel, after verifying all the documentary evidence, like, mutation, record of rights and also the civil court judgment and statement of fatima the owner, the land tribunal raising the presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka land reforms Act, 1961 has conferred the right in favour of respondent 3. It is also contended by the learned counsel, after verifying all the documentary evidence, like, mutation, record of rights and also the civil court judgment and statement of fatima the owner, the land tribunal raising the presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka land reforms Act, 1961 has conferred the right in favour of respondent 3. It is also worthwhile to see, during the course of the order of the tribunal, after the death of respondent 3's father, the name of respondent 3 was shown with respect to r. s. No. 3/1 arid the same has been rectified with respect to r. s. No. 3/4 as 'cultivator' of the land and that the order passed by the assistant commissioner for the rectification was upheld by the deputy commissioner and also it is seen from the order passed by the tribunal taking into consideration the evidence given by the neighbouring land owners and respondent 3 has been cultivating the land even from the time of his father since 40 years and also taking into consideration the judgment passed in original suit No. 113 of 1965, wherein it has been declared that the 4th respondent-fatima as the owner of the land and the 3rd respondent as the tenant, occupancy right has been conferred. It has been seriously contended by the learned counsel that when there is the decree of the court in original suit No. 113 of 1965 declaring that the 4th respondent fatima is the owner of the land, the present petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition challenging the order of the tribunal as she is not the owner of sy. No. 3/4. Even otherwise also on perusal of the order passed by the land tribunal which has discussed the entire evidence after enquiry as contemplated under Section 48-a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, taking into consideration the evidence of the neighbouring land owners and also the other documents including revenue records in addition to it. Taking into consideration the judgment passed in original suit No. 113 of 1965, the present writ petition for quashing the said Order, in the circumstances of the case, does not sustain. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in form 7, the name of the petitioner has been shown as the owner. Taking into consideration the judgment passed in original suit No. 113 of 1965, the present writ petition for quashing the said Order, in the circumstances of the case, does not sustain. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in form 7, the name of the petitioner has been shown as the owner. It is to be stated that in view of the fact that when there is a decision of the civil court and also the revenue records have been taken into consideration by the tribunal, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not sustain. ( 10 ) HENCE the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of force. --- *** --- .