( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has questioned the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Shikaripur declining to hold that he was the tenant in occupation of lands bearing Sy Nos. 200, 202 and 203 of Issur Village on the relevant date and that he was entitled to be registered as their occupant under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent is the owner of the lands referred to above. The petitioner and the 1st respondent are sons of Rudrayya Kulkarni. The 1st respondent has however, been given in adoption to Mahadevappayya Patel of Issur village. ( 3 ) AFTER the coming into force of the Karnataka Act 1 of 1974, the petitioner applied to the Tahsildar to enter his name in the revenue records showing that he was the tenant of the lands referred to above during the year 1974-75. Accordingly the Tahsildar passed an order on 13-10-1974 and the name of the petitioner was entered as the cultivator of the lands in question during the year 1974-75. ( 4 ) THE petitioner applied to the Land Tribunal, Shikaripur to declare that he was the tenant in occupation of the lands on the relevant date and to grant him occupancy rights in respect of the said lands. The 1st respondent, owner of the lands, readily agreed before the Tribunal stating that the petitioner was the tenant and to treat him as the occupant of the lands. On looking into the records, the Land Tribunal was of the opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to be registered as the tenant because it had not been established that he was holding them under leases granted in his favour by the 1st respondent. From the deposition of the petitioner which was recorded by the Tribunal on 24-10-1975 in connection with the enquiry, it is seen that he had stated that he was cultivating the lands in question for 15 years. In the writ petition, however, it is stated that the petitioner was cultivating the lands in question for 10 years and that the statement recorded by the Tribunal is not correct. In the writ petition, however, it is stated that the petitioner was cultivating the lands in question for 10 years and that the statement recorded by the Tribunal is not correct. The petitioner, however, has not been able to produce any revenue record to show that he was cultivating the lands as a tenant for a period of 10 years prior to the date on which he was examined before the Tribunal. As mentioned earlier, the only entry in the revenue records which supports the case of the petitioner, is the entry made pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar d/. 13-10-74 subsequent to coming into force of the Karnataka Act 1 of 1974. The petitioner also did not produce any document before the Tribunal to show that he had paid rent to the 1st respondent in respect of any period prior to 1-3-1974. The Tribunal found that the 1st respondent was owning lands far in excess of the ceiling imposed by the law and that he had stated that the lands in question were in the occupation of the petitioner only in order to see that the lands were not taken over by the Govt under the provisions of the Act. It is not disputed that the 1st respondent owns lands in excess of the ceiling. The question in this case is one of fact ( 5 ) IN Parwatamma v. Virupakshayya, WP. 6000 of 1975, this Court has affirmed the order of the Land Tribunal in similar circumstances. It should be mentioned here that in that case the applicant before the Tribunal was the sister of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent was the owner of the land. This case is in no way different from the facts of the case in writ petition 6000 of 1975. There is no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .