the contention put forward by the claimants (Respondents 5 to 13) has referred to the partition deed No.1010 of 1972 . No reference is made to the report of the Authorised Officer as to the genuineness or otherwise of the claims made by the claimants. The Taluk Land Board concluded that claimant Nos. 4 to 13 have not produced before the Taluk Land Board any evidence to prove that they were in possession of the land before 01.01.1970. On that ground, their claims were rejected. It is not clear as to whether a report of the Authorised Officer was obtained touching upon the claims made by the claimants. No reference is made in the order about such a report submitted by the Authorised Officer. At the same time, reference is made to the report of the Authorised Officer wherein he had reported that an extent of 13.63 ½ acres is a vested forest. The rejection of the claims made by the claimants was not made after discussing the contention put forward by them. A reading of the order passed by the Taluk Land Board would not disclose on what ground, the Taluk Land Board came to the conclusion that the claims put forward by the claimants are not genuine. The respective claims by the claimants, the nature of tenancy claimed by them, the documents produced or evidence adduced by them in support of their respective contentions etc. are not referred to or discussed in the order. The Taluk Land Board concluded that the legal heirs of the assessee are bound to surrender an extent of 2.43 ¼ acres of land. This finding was arrived at without a proper finding on the questions involved in the case.
