An order made by a Tribunal without jurisdiction must be corrected, and a writ of certiorari must issue as a matter of right when it materially affects the rights of a party.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dt. 21-3-1977 made in WP no. 8722 of 1976 by Malimath, J, by which the learned single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the order dt. 30-5-75 passed by the first respondent-Land Tribunal in Case No. LRM/6/75-76.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions urged in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. Briefly stated they are: The appellant is the owner of an agricultural land measuring 3 acres 38 guntas in Sy. No. 104 of Markal village of Sringeri Taluk, Chickma- galur Dist. The second respondent-Sheshachari made an application before the Land Tribunal under S. 48a of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), for grant of occupancy right to him alleging that he is a tenant personally cultivating the said land. On the said application, notice was issued to the appellant-land holder. The case was posted for hearing on 29-4-1975. On the said date, both parties appeared before the Tribunal. The second respondent disclaimed his claim of tenancy over the land in question. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed his application. The order of the Tribunal, which has been filed as Ext. 'b' in these proceedings, reads thus :______________" 29-4-75 Case called. Both parties present. The applicant had disclaimed any tenancy over the land. He refuses to say that he has cultivated the land at any time. There is no alternative except to reject the land subject to make a reference to the Government. Hence the application is rejected. LRM of Sheshachari Sd- Members sd- H. M. Singappa Gowda Sd-"

( 3 ) ON May 30, 1975 the second respondent submitted an application before the Land Tribunal stating that the appellant and his sons had promised to give him half the lands to cultivate and thereby he was induced to disclaim his application before the Tribunal. On the said date the appellant, who was present before the Tribunal for some other cases, was notified and on the same day the Tribunal passed the order impugned in the writ petition setting aside its order dated 29-4-1975 and ' posting the case for evidence on 23-6-1975. The order dated 30-5-1975 marked as Ext. 'c' in the writ proceedings reads thus : order"30-5-75 : The applicant and the Khatedar both present. The applicant Sheshachar submits an application wherein he states that he had filed application under Land Reforms Act, but then the landlord and his sons told me that they would give me half the lands to cultivate and they have induced me to disown the application before the Tribunal. The landlord has not lived up to his promises. "therefore the applicant requests the Tribunal to reconsider his case. All the members of the Tribunal have gone through his application dated 30-5-1975 and they come to the conclusion that there may be truth in what applicant says. There are further, more, strict instructions from Government wherein Government have directed the tribunal not to permit withdrawal of application when it is suspected that it is done out of pressurisation from the khatedar. (Underlining italics is ours) the Tribunal, therefore unanimously decided to reconsider the case of applicant Sheshachar and the order dated 29-4-75 by this tribunal kept aside. Both the parties to be present for adducing evidence on 23-6-75. Sd -. . . . . . Members

( 4 ) THE above order was challenged by the appellant before this court under Art. 227 of the Constitution mainly on the ground tha,t the tribunal has no jurisdiction to review or recall its order made under s. 48a of the Act dismissing the application of the second respondent. This Court issued rule nisi in WP. No. 8722 of 1976. This second respondent remained unrepresented despite service of notice. The learned high Court Government Pleader appeared for the Land Tribunal. After hearing the Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government pleader, Malimath, J, made the order under appeal dismissing the writ pet