G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.
1. The appellant, aggrieved by the order of Bhimiah, J., dated 12th August 1976, rejecting W. P. 6933 of 1976 at the stage of preliminary hearing, has preferred this appeal.
2. The second respondent alleging he is a tenant of 3 acres 35 guntas of agricultural land in Sy. No. 483 (P) of Shirguppa, Bellary District, filed an application for registration of occupancy under S. 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 19,61 (hereinafter called the Act). The appellant is the land holder. The facts alleged in the application do not appear to have been verified by the Tahsildar with reference to the Record of Rights as is required to be done under R. 19 of the Rules framed under the Act. The second respondent made an application before the first respondent Tribunal for the issue of an order of injunction. The Tribunal without issuing notice of that application to the appellant straightway passed an order granting interim injunction against the appellant. Coming to know of the said order, the appellant made an application before the Tribunal to revoke the order of injunction. That application was not heard and no order was passed by the Tribunal. After waiting for a long time, the appellant approached this Court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. That writ petition came up before Bhimiah, J. who, at the stage of preliminary hearing rejected the same.
3. In the writ petition, the appellant has alleged, inter alia, that the third respondent B. E. Ramayya one of the members of the first respondent-Tribunal, is biased against the Muslim community and therefore, the impugned order has been made against him. The third respondent has not denied the charge made against him notwithstanding the fact that he has been impleaded as a party respondent and notice of this appeal has been taken to him. It is unnecessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal to consider the complaint of bias alleged against one of the Members of the Tribunal, since it has to succeed on merits of the case.
4. Section 48C of the Act confers jurisdiction on the land Tribunal to issue interlocutory orders in the nature of temporary injunction or to appoint a Receiver concerning the land in respect of which an application is made under S. 48A. Sub-section (2) of the said section provides that the Tribunal may at any time revoke or modify the order made by it under sub-s. (1) and the order made under sub-s. (2) shall be final. Apparently, sub-s. (2) of S. 48C confers the power of making ad interim orders as is provided under R. 3 of O. 39 of the Civil P. C. Ordinarily, no order affecting the rights of a party should be made without affording a fair hearing to that party. In exceptional circumstances, Civil Court has been given power under R. 3 of O. 39 to pass ex parte interim orders where, it appears, that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay in issuing notice of the application to the opposite party. Assuming without deciding that sub-s. (1) of S. 48C confers jurisdiction to make an ex parte order of temporary injunction, there must be sufficient material before the Tribunal to satisfy itself that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay in issuing notice. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the Tribunal was so satisfied. At least when the appellant appeared before the Tribunal and made an application to vacate the order, there was a duty cast on the Tribunal to hear his objections at the earliest moment and make ran order under sub-section (2) of S.48C. That was not done. The conduct on the part of the Members of the Tribunal, apparently, gave support to the apprehension in the mind of the appellant that some of its members were biased.
5. Rule 19 of the Rules requires that when an application under S. 48-A(1) is received by the Tribunal, the Tahsildar shall verify the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the Record of Rights and other Revenue Records and shall make a note of the result of the verification an the application. Thereafter, the Tribunal has to issue notice to the opposite party ie., the landholder. In the instant case, no such verification was done by the Tahsildar. Verification of the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the Record of Rights is necessary for the reason that under S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the entries in the Record of Rights are presumed to be correct. if the Record of Rights do not show the name of the person claiming to be the tenant as the person cultivating the land immediately prior to 1st of March 1974, which is the relevant date, the presumption is that the land has not vested in the State Government under S. 44 of the Act. Until that presumption is rebutted either by the State or by the person claiming to be a tenant, the presumption is that the landholder is personally cultivating the land immediately prior to 1st March 1974. A presumption arising under S. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act can be rebutted only after hearing both sides and no ex parte order could be made against the land-holder when there is a presumption of law arising under the said section in his favour. In the instant case, it is conceded by Sri Arbatti, learned counsel for the second respondent that the name of the second respondent does not find a place in the Record of Rights for the years immediately prior to 1st March 1974. The Tribunal without verifying this fact from the Record of Rights has acted wholly arbitrarily in issuing an order of temporary injunction against the appellant. The injury suffered by the appellant as a result of the arbitrary and illegal exercise of the power by the Tribunal, is of a substantial nature and has also resulted in substantial failure of justice.
6. Therefore, we allow this appeal and quash the order of the Tribunal dated 24-4-1976 made in I. A. No. LRM/ 1/76-77.
7. It is ordered accordingly.
8. Parties to bear their own costs.
9. Appeal allowed.