ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners' grievance is that the Land Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 9-10-2001, ought not to have granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent 3 in respect of the subject lands situated in Kagawada Village in RS. Nos. 10, 70, 71 and 66, measuring 5 acres 37 guntas, 5 acres 36 guntas, 14 acres 34 guntas and 9 acres 27 guntas of land respectively. The main ground urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Balakrishna Shastry is that the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent 3 mainly on the basis of the entries found in Diary Nos. 6613 and 6614 and since those entries have not been cancelled by any of the authorities, it is presumed that, as on 1-3-1974, respondent 3 was in occupation of the subject lands. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the petitioners have challenged the very entries mainly on the ground that the signatures found in the above said entries were forged and in this connection, an application was also filed before the learned Munsiff and the opinion of the expert was also obtained and the opinion rendered by the Forensic Science Laboratory as per Annexure-E confirms that the signature on the documents marked as Annexure-D was not in the handwriting of the person, who has signed Annexures-A1 to AS. The learned Counsel, referring to this document, submitted that in view of the application filed in regard to the veracity of the entries, the Land Tribunal, to which the proceedings in MLR No. 1437 of 1966 was transferred, ought to have given a finding on that before coming to the conclusion that respondent 3 is entitled for occupancy rights. 3. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that no material was placed/before the Tribunal by the petitioners to prove that the signatures in the Entries 6613 and 6614 were forged ones and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 4. 3. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that no material was placed/before the Tribunal by the petitioners to prove that the signatures in the Entries 6613 and 6614 were forged ones and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 4. Having borne in mind the submissions made to the above effect and on a careful perusal of the impugned order, what is clear is that the petitioners did take the stand before the Tribunal that the signatures in the Diary Entries 6613 and 6614 were forged ones and the Land Tribunal did make reference to this stand taken by the petitioners in its order. Yet, it has not chosen to give its finding as to whether the signatures in the Entries 6613 and 6614 are forged or not. As such, the consequent conclusion of the Tribunal that respondent 3 is presumed to be in cultivation of the subject lands as on 1-3-1974, therefore, is not based on proper appreciation of the material placed before it. It was incumbent on the part of the Land Tribunal to have decided the issue relating to forgery or otherwise of the signature in the entries 6613 and 6614, since the Tribunal itself has opined that the proceedings in respect of MLR Application No. 1437 of 1966 had not attained finality and that the said proceedings were transferred to the Land Tribunal. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the above aspects and more particularly with regard to the veracity of the entries 6613 and 6614 and thereafter, the Tribunal can pass the order with regard to the occupancy rights. 6. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, after affording both parties opportunity to place material in support of their stand. The Land Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously, but not later than 31-12-2006. All the contentions of the parties are left open. It is also made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not, in any way, influence the decision of the Land Tribunal.