1. This Writ Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings initiated before the Land Tribunal, Bijapur Taluka (respondent No. 1) on an application made by Bheemappa Yallappa Byadagi (respondent No. 2) under S.45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 hereinafter called "the Act", claiming registration of occupancy in respect of a land comprised in B. S. No. 215/2 measuring 16 acres and 12 Guntas in Shiddapur village of Bijapot Taluka.

2. The petitioner is the land - holder. On the application of the second respondent claiming registration of occupancy, the Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the application on the ground that the land in dispute was not a tenanted land immediately prior to 1st March 1974, which is the relevant date for determination of a dispute under S.45 of the Act. The petitioner produced before the Tribunal certified Extracts of the Record of Rights and other documents. The Tribunal examined the parties and also some witnesses on both sides and made an order on 18-2-1976 holding that the second respondent (applicant) is a tenant of the disputed land for the past 15 years and that he is entitled to the grant of registration of occupancy. Aggrieved by the said order, the landholder has preferred this writ petition.

3. It was urged by Sri V. S. Gunjal learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order of the Tribunal is not a speaking order and that the Tribunal has failed to give reasons for ignoring the presumption of correctness of the entries made in the Record of Rights and therefore, the order is liable to be quashed.

4. Before the Tribunal, the second respondent produced a document said to be a 'Lavani Kararu'. The Tribunal noted that the second respondents name had been entered in the Record of Rights for the Argicultural year 1967-68. It also noted the fact that the second respondent had produced some receipts evidencing the sale of plantains and that he had also produced what is styled as 'Lavani Kararu'. This is what the Tribunal has stated: (Original in Kannada transliterated - Ed.)
Grama record nodidalli argidarara hesaru 67-68 markum namooda adaddu ade, Argidararu hajara Madida Balekayi Maratada billu lavani kararu melinda arigi dararu kaleda 15 varsha - galinda eevaregu saguttaragi grahita hidiya lagide.
What is stated above is merely the conclusion of the Tribunal. It does not discuss the evidence on record, the effect of the presumption of law arising under S.188 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, with regard to the entries in the Record of Rights and how that presumption has been rebutted, and how the 'Lavani Kararu' relied upon by the second respondent is sufficient to rebut the entries in the Record of Rights. This court has repeatedly laid down that the Land Tribunal, which adjudicates upon the right to property of the citizens, has to make a speaking order, that what is required is not the subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal that the applicant before it is a tenant or not, and that since it is open to scrutiny by this Court, it must give reasons for its conclusions. The impugned order also does not state that the disputed land was a tenanted land immediately prior to 1st March, 1974, which is a condition necessary to grant occupancy right in respect of such land. S.44 of the Act states that all lands held by or in the possession of tenants immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment; Act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted under S. 5, shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government. S.45 entitles a tenant as defined in the Act who was personally cultivating the land which has vested in the State Government under S. 44 to obtain registration of occupancy. The question whether the land vested in the State Government and the claim of the tenant for registration of occupancy are related questions. Since the two questions a