M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE above petitions are disposed of by this common order as in all of them the prayer is for a writ of mandamus directing that the rights of the petitioners as tenants cf lands acquired by the 1st respondent-Bangalore development Authority under the kamataka Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') be decided by the appropriate authority under the Act in the matter of making an award and in the matter of making payment of compensation. ( 2 ) IT is averred by the petitioners that they are tenants of land in different survey numbers in different extents in the village Jarakbande Kaval, yeshvantpur Hobli, Bangalore north Taluk. In support of tneir assertion that they are tenants of the said agricultural lands aforementioned, the Record of rights and tenancy extracts for the year 1980-81 and in some cases for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 are produced as annexures F and G There is no other document in support of their tenancy claim. The lands in question were notified for acquisition on 22. 12. 1977 under S. 4 of the Act. read with S. 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act. On 30 8 1979, notification under S. 6 of the Act was published in the gazette dt. 20. 9. 1979. In July, 1982, the possession of the tenants on the lands in question were sought to be disturbed by the 1st respondent-Authority on the. ground that the land had vested in it by virtue of the acquisition proceedings being completed. In that circumstance, the petitioners have approached this Court for relief in the from which I have already stated at the beginning of this order. ( 3 ) SRI K. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made it clear that the petitioners are not challenging the acquisition proceedings as such, but the petitioners are only aggrieved on account of the total inaction on the part of the Special Land acqusition Officer of the 1st respondent Bangalore Development authothority in adjudicating their claims which they have preferred in writing as evidenced by annexure-A to the petition which is a detailed claim petition purporting to be under Ss. 9, 10,18 and 30 of the Act. Therefore, the prayer for a writ of mandamus in terms above. 9, 10,18 and 30 of the Act. Therefore, the prayer for a writ of mandamus in terms above. ( 4 ) THE contention advanced by Sri subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that when the claim application is presented before the Special Land Acquisition officer by the petitioners, he is duty bound in accordance with S. 133 of the Karnataka land Reforms Art (hereinafter referred to as the 'reforms Act to refer the question of apportionment or award of compensation between the owners and tenants to the appropriate Land Tribunal as the Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to determine the question of tenancy of the acquired lands in question between themselves and the owners of the land. Section 133 of the Reforms Act is as follows : ( 5 ) THERE are numerous decisions of this Court, both of single Judge benches as well as Division Benches, pointing out that after the coming into force of S. 132 and S. 133 of the Reforms Act, exclusive jurisdiction to determine the question of tenancy between the Landlord and tenant is vested in the Land Tribunals under the Act and not in any other authority. The language of the sections also makes it abundantly clear. The Reforms ACL is a special enactment brought into existence by the Legislature to give effect to the Directive Principles of State policy in the Constitution in that, tenants should be given ownership of the land. The Reforms Act has come into force in Karnataka as far back as 1966 but it under-went radtical changes by numerous amendments in 1973 and 1974. By virtue of Sec. 44 of the Reforms Act all tenanted land vested in the Government with effect from the date of the Amendment Act 1 of 1974. After such deemed vesting of lands the tenants are required to make an application in Form-7 as prescribed by the Rules framed under the Reforms act to the Land Tribunals before a specified date and acquire registration of occupancy right and thereafter ownership on payment of occupancy price this is the scheme of the Act. The time lor making such application to register themselves as occupants by tenants was extended from time to time after 1974 and the last date for preterring such applications for registeration of occupancy right was 30th june, 1979. The time lor making such application to register themselves as occupants by tenants was extended from time to time after 1974 and the last date for preterring such applications for registeration of occupancy right was 30th june, 1979. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have made applicatuns to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction for registration off occupancy right so far. In other words, even if one were to assume that the petitioners have been tenants from a long time on the lands in question, they have lost their right. In the result by operation of S. 44 of the Act, if the lands were tenanted, the lands in question have vested in the State Government and the State Government should be presumed to be the owner. In the instant case case, possession appears to have been given to the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority. ( 6 ) EVEN otherwise, by acceding to the prayer of the petitioners this Court exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot, in effect permit the petitioners to acquire rights flowing out of tenancy beyond the presicribed period for establishing such rights before the Land Tribunal. ( 7 ) NONE can have any quarrel with the proposition advanced by Sri. Subba rao that the Land Tribunals alone are competent to determine the tenancy rights. But that does not mean that the Land Tribunals must be vested with such power even after the expiry of 30th June, 1979. This, assuming that the petitioners were tenants prior to 1979-80 or 1980-81 as the case may be as evidenced by annexures F and G. ( 8 ) FOR these reasons, the petitioners have no locus standi to move this Court under Article 226 requiring the Special land Acquisition Officer, under the Act to refer their claims to the Land tribunal for adjudication of their tenancy rights. ( 9 ) THESE petitions are rejected without rule being issued. --- *** --- .