JUDGMENT P.V. Reddi, C.J.— These two writ appeals are filed against the order in Writ Petition No. 6485 of 1999, dated 14.12.2000. The writ Petitioner is the 1st Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 574 of 2001 and Respondents 2, 5, 7 and 8 are the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 548 of 2001. The writ petition was filed questioning the order dated 10.7.1979 passed by the Land Tribunal, Honnavar Taluk, Karwar District. 2. An application was filed before the Land Tribunal in Form 7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act claiming occupancy rights over the agricultural land in Sy. No. 125. The Land Tribunal, Honnavar, by its order dated 10.7.1979 declared the applicant (appellant in Writ Appeal No. 574 of 2001) as occupant and directed the registration of his name in the revenue records accordingly. It may be mentioned that the Petitioner claimed in Form 7 that he was cultivating the land as a tenant for a long period. No other particulars were mentioned therein. No evidence regarding possession and cultivation of the applicant as tenant was adverted to in the order dated 10.7.1979. The order is bald. Though it stated in the order that public notice was issued in Form No. 8 the learned Single Judge found on perusal of the record that there was no proof of publication of such notice. It is also recited in the order that Form 9-notice was issued to concerned parties. If we go by the preamble to the order, the owner's name is mentioned as Vishnu Purushotham Batta. No other opposite party's name is mentioned. In all probability, the notice would have been issued on the said person. In Form 7-application, the name of the landlord is rightly shown as Idagunji Vinayaka Deva (deity) represented by Sri Gajanana Narayana Sabhahit. But, in the order, the name of deity is not shown in the array of parties. There is not even a mention of the fact that the ownership of the land was with the deity. In the statement of objections filed by Respondents 1 and 2 who are both trustees of the temple, it is stated that the 1st Respondent (appellant in Writ Appeal No. 548 of 2001) acquired 'mulgeni rights' in Munsiff Court auction on 7.4.1969. In the statement of objections filed by Respondents 1 and 2 who are both trustees of the temple, it is stated that the 1st Respondent (appellant in Writ Appeal No. 548 of 2001) acquired 'mulgeni rights' in Munsiff Court auction on 7.4.1969. The right, title and interest of Goida Rama Naik and Others, who were tenants, was attached and sold in auction in execution of decree (suit number is not mentioned) and the sale certificate was issued. It is also stated by the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 574 of 2001 that he was put in possession of the land on 1.3.1974 and he has been cultivating the land by paying rents to the temple trustees. No such details were mentioned either in Form 7-application or in the order of the Tribunal. In view of these formidable legal infirmities in the order, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and directing re-enquiry. 3. It is true that the writ Petitioner (1st Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 548 of 2001) filed the writ petition nearly 20 years after the order was passed by the Land Tribunal. But, in a case of this nature, where the claim of the Trustee professing to be a tenant was adjudicated without public notice and without notice to other Trustees of the Temple and the entire order has to be regarded as null and void on account of the violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure as enjoined by the Act and the Rules. The delay shall not be considered to be an obstacle for adjudicating the writ petition on merits. The procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal and the slip-shod manner in which the Land Tribunal disposed of the case shocks the conscience of the Court. In these peculiar circumstances, we do not think that the relief has to be denied on account of delay. We therefore, dismiss Writ Appeal No. 574 of 2001. 4. The procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal and the slip-shod manner in which the Land Tribunal disposed of the case shocks the conscience of the Court. In these peculiar circumstances, we do not think that the relief has to be denied on account of delay. We therefore, dismiss Writ Appeal No. 574 of 2001. 4. In Writ Appeal No. 548 of 2001 filed by the Trustees of the Temple, the objection is to the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum to consider whether he should initiate proceedings against the Trustees as per Section 50 or 50A of the Bombay Public Trust Act on the ground that the Trustees have failed to safeguard the interests of the Temple/Trust and they took undue interest to support the cause of the 1st Respondent in the writ petition who claimed tenancy rights. While, in principle, we do not find fault with the direction given by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that it would be more appropriate if such enquiry is taken up after the conclusion of the enquiry before the Land Tribunal. If the Land Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the claim of the 1st Respondent in the Writ Petition (Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 574 of 2001) is genuine and that he was justified in approaching the Land Tribunal in the year 1974 claiming occupancy rights based on the Court Auction sale, the case for holding an enquiry against the Trustees gets weakened, otherwise there will be every justification to hold the enquiry. Hence, we are modifying the order of the learned Single Judge by directing that the question of holding enquiry suo motu under Section 50 against the Trustees shall be considered by the Charity Commissioner only on the conclusion of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Officer in charge of the administration in the Tribunal shall ensure that a copy of the Land Tribunal's order is sent to the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum. We direct the Land Tribunal to proceed with the enquiry with utmost expedition and conclude the same, at any rate, within six months. The Court shall not be understood to have expressed any view on the merits of the claim of the 1st Respondent. Writ Appeal No. 548 of 2001 is accordingly disposed of. We make no order as to costs in both the cases.