RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) 1. These Writ Appeals are presented against the common order of the learned singfe Judge in three Writ Petitions presented by the appellants dismissing the petitions in which they had challenged the legality of the order of the Land tribunal, Remanagaram, by which their claim for occupancy rights in respect of certain items of agricultural lands were rejected. ( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of these appeals are these : Respondent-1 was the owner of 6 acres 09 guntas of land in Sy. No. 53 of Vaderahalli of Ramanagaram Tq. Appellants 1 to 3 are sons and appellant No. 4 is the wife of Late nanje Gowda. They made applications before the Land Tribunal, Ramanagaram, claiming occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. 4 acres out of the aforesaid land had been mortgaged in favour of Nanje Gowda by a registered mortgage deed dated 31st March, 1961 (Regn. No. 755/61-62 ). 2 acres 09 guntas of land was also mortgaged under a registered mortgage deed dated 22-7-1967 (Regn. No. 2451/67-68) in favour of Siddamma, wife of Bagaiah @ Kuppaiab, who was also the brother of Nanje gowda. The appellants claimed that they were the tenants of 4 acres of land even before it was mortgaged in favour of nanje Gowda. Similarly, their plea was that they were tenants of acres 09 guntas even before it was mortgaged in favour of Siddamma by the husband of respondent-1. It was also their further plea that the mortgagee Siddamma allowed the lease to continue. The claim of the appellants for occupancy rights was granted by the Land Tribunal and was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 1422 of 1977 by its order datec 18-11-1979 on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to record a finding as to whether Nanje Gowda was a tenant of the aforesaid two items of land mortgaged by the husband of respondent-1 as that would be a material fac necessary to decide whether the appellants were eligible for occupancy rights. Afier the matter was remitted the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the lease in favour of Nanje Gowda, prior to the mortgage, was not proved. As a result the applications of the appellants were rejected. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed three writ Petitions. Afier the matter was remitted the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the lease in favour of Nanje Gowda, prior to the mortgage, was not proved. As a result the applications of the appellants were rejected. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed three writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Jugde holding that the finding recorded by the tribunal was a finding of fact and there is no ground to interfere with the same. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants have presented these appeals. ( 3 ) MR. Papanna, learned Counsel for the appellants, raised the following contentions : (I) As admittedly the appellants were mortgagees in possession in respect of 4 acres of land they are deemed to be the tenants by virtue of Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act' in short) and as the 1st respondent had failed to make an application within one year from the appointed day, the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to contend that the appellants were not the tenants ; and (ii) in respect of both items of lands the Tribunal had recorded a finding that there was no lease prior to the date of mortgage solely on the ground that there was no recital in the mortgage as to the existence of lease, and the Tribunal had failed in its statutory duty of examining entries in the record of rights as required under rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms rules, 1974. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the first contention of the appellants it is necessary to set-out Section 4 of the Act, which reads :"4 - PERSONS TO BE DEEMED TENANTS - A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person , shall be deemed to be tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not - (a) a member of the owner's family, or (b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner's family, or (c) a mortgagee in possession : provided that if upon an application made by the owner within one year from the appcinted day, (i) if the Tribunal declares that such person is not a tenant and its decision is not reversed on appeal, or (ii) the Tribunal refuses to make such declaration but its decision is reversed on appeal. Such person shall not be deemed to be a tenant". According to the above provision every person who is lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person should be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner. But, to this rule there are three exceptions, namely, if the person so cultivating the land happens to be (i) a member of the owner's family ; or (ii) a paid servant ; or (iii) a mortgagee-in-possession. Therefore, the clear meaning of the provision is that except persons belonging to the above three excepted categories every other person cultivating the land personally would be deemed to be a tenant under the provisions of the Act. ( 5 ) THE provision, however, gives an opportunity to the owner to get rid of the presumption of the deemed tenancy. He could get rid of the presumption of deemed tenancy in favour of such persons only by making an application before the land Tribunal and get a declaration that the person cultivating the land was not a tenant. He is required to make that application within one year from the appointed date i. e. , 1-3-1974. He could get rid of the presumption of deemed tenancy in favour of such persons only by making an application before the land Tribunal and get a declaration that the person cultivating the land was not a tenant. He is required to make that application within one year from the appointed date i. e. , 1-3-1974. Therefore, if in a given case if any person has been cultivating the land belonging to another and, he does not belong to any one of the three excepted categories, stated above, and the landlord fails to make an application within one year from 1-3-1974 and get a declaration, thereafter the landlord is prevented from contending that such person is not a tenant, for, the presumption of deemed tenancy arising in his favour becomes final. In support of this contention the learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. A. Shirdone etc , v Saheb H. Tajbhokari (A. I. R. 1985 s. C. . 836 ). In the said case also whether a mortgagee-in-possession of an agricultural land could claim to have become a protected tenant on the ground that the owner failed to get a declaration that he was not a tenant within one year from the date of the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1946, which affected amendment to the bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, came up for consideration. The Supreme Court in para-18 of its judgment held that the person concerned in that case who was a mortgagee-in-possession, could claim the benefit of tenancy and could claim to have a right to continue in possession of the land for the reason that the landlord had failed to take the opportunity of making an application within one year from the date on which the Amendment act of 1946 came into force which gave such an opportunity. Relying on the above decision the learned Counsel contended that the same position exists in this case also in view of the failure on the part of the 1st respondent to make such an within one year from the appointed day i. e. , 1-3-1974. The contention urged for the appellants, relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, would have been unexceptionable if the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 (Ss. 2a and 3a) and the provisions of Section 4 of the Act were identical. The contention urged for the appellants, relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, would have been unexceptionable if the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 (Ss. 2a and 3a) and the provisions of Section 4 of the Act were identical. In order to appreciate the point it is necessary to setout side-by-side Section 2a of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, and Section 4 of the Act : 2a42a (1) A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not - persons TO BE DEMAND TENANTS - A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not- (a) a member of the owner's family, or (a) a member of the owner's family. (b) a servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share or a hired labourer cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner's family, unless the owner has within one year of (b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner's family, or the coming into force of the Bombay Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1946, made an application to the Mamlatdar within whose jurisdiction the land is situated for a declaration that the person is not a tenant. (2) Where an application under sub-section (1) has been made and the Mamlatdar refuses to make such declaration and the Mamlatdar's decision is not set aside by the Collector in appeal under sub-sec. (3) of Section 13 or by the Provisional Government under Section 28, the person shall be deemed to be a tenant for the purposes of this Act". (c) a mortgagee in possession provided that if upon an application made by the owner within one'year from the - appointed day (i) the Tribunal declares that such person is not a tenant and its decision is not reversed on appeal, or (ii) the Tribunal refuses to make such declaration b'ut its decision is reversed on appeal. (c) a mortgagee in possession provided that if upon an application made by the owner within one'year from the - appointed day (i) the Tribunal declares that such person is not a tenant and its decision is not reversed on appeal, or (ii) the Tribunal refuses to make such declaration b'ut its decision is reversed on appeal. Such person shall not be deemed to be a tenant". A reading of the Sections at once makes it clear that the mortgagee in possession was not one of the excepted categories under Section 2a of the bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, whereas it is so under Section 4 of the Act. ( 6 ) IN this behalf, it is pertinent to point out that Section 4 of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('bt and AL ACT' for short) which came into force subsequent to the bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, is similar to section 4 of the Act. The Supreme Court pointed out the contrast between Section 4 of the 1948 Act and Section 4 of the BT andal Act 1939 at paragraph 7 of its judgment and observed as follows at paragraph 8 :"it is thus obvious that there were only two conditions in order to attract the provisions of S. 2a{1) of the bombay Tenancy Act, 1939. But in the corresponding S. 4 of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1948 one more condition was added in addition to the old two conditions as provided in S. 2a (1) of the Bombay tenancy Act 1939 and that additional condition excludes the mortgagee in. possession from acquiring the status of a 'deemed tenant' within the meaning of S. 4. If the cases in hand were to be governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the mortgagees in possession would be out of the purview of S. 4 of that Act as mortgagees in possession have been excluded from being 'deemed tenants'. As the Act of 1948 has no retrospective effect the suits giving rise to the aforesaid appeals will be governed by the Act of 1939. As the Act of 1948 has no retrospective effect the suits giving rise to the aforesaid appeals will be governed by the Act of 1939. "the above paragraph is apposite to this case and sufficient to repel the contention of Sri Papanna, for what the supreme Court has observed in respect of section 4 of the BT 8 AL Act of 1948 applies to the interpretation of Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that paragraph 17 of the judgement of the Supreme Court indicates that this case also would be similar to the one coming under Section 2a of the bombay Tenancy Act, 1939. We are unable to agree for the reason that what would be the effect of Section 4 of the bt and AL Act which incorporated 'mortgagees' as the third exception to the fiction of deemed tenancy had been clealy and expressly stated by the Supreme court at paragraph, 8, extracted above and Section 4 of the Karnataka Land reforms Act is identically worded. The appellants therefore cannot claim to be deemed tenants as they being mortgagees fall under one of the excepted categories. Therefore, we find no substance in the first contention of the appellants. ( 8 ) COMING to the second contention, it is seen from the order of the Land tribunals that the sole basis on which the tribunal recorded the finding that the appellants were not lessees, prior to the coming into force of the two mortgages, was that in the two mortgage deeds there was no reference to the existence of any anterior leases in favour of Nanje gowda. In some of the depositions of persons, who gave evidence in favour of the appellants, they have clearly stated about the existence of leases prior to the date of the two mortgages. Whatever that may be, the fact remains that Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, requires the Tahsildar to verify the particulars mentioned in the application with refernce to the revenue records including the record of rights and make a note as to the effect of the entries on the application (Form-7 ). Whatever that may be, the fact remains that Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, requires the Tahsildar to verify the particulars mentioned in the application with refernce to the revenue records including the record of rights and make a note as to the effect of the entries on the application (Form-7 ). Though this Court, on an earlier occation, quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter directing the Tribunal to record a finding as to whether the leases existed prior to the date of mortgages, as pleaded by the appellants, the Tribunal has not stated in its order as to what were entries in the record of rights. The appellants have produced a certified copy of the pahanies for the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 (vide Annexure-A ). According to the said entries it is shown that Nanjayya was the tenant of the land in question even during The year 1960-61, i. e. , prior to the date of mortgage and nanjayya is said to be none other than nanje Gowda as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel also pointed out that in order to prove that the appellants are deemed tenants they wanted to produce certified copies of the record of rights from the year 1952-53 to 1960 -61 and though an application was made in that behalf an endorsement was issued on 17-10-1979 by the Tahsildar of Ramanagaram Taluk (vide Annexure-B) stating that there was no authority to give copies of the pahanies applied for. ( 9 ) SRI Rangaraju, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, however, submitted that factually the entries in the record of rights were in favour of his client. ( 10 ) ALL that we are observing is that the entries in the record of rights, whether in favour of the appellants or 1st respondent, has not been examined by the Tribunal and, without so examining, a finding has been recorded and thereby there is disobedience to the Rules. ( 11 ) IT is difficult to appreciate as to why the Tahsildar refused to give certified copy of the pahanies applied for. Whatever that may be, the Tahsildar's duty is to verify the record of rights and make a note on the application (Form-7) under Rule 19. ( 11 ) IT is difficult to appreciate as to why the Tahsildar refused to give certified copy of the pahanies applied for. Whatever that may be, the Tahsildar's duty is to verify the record of rights and make a note on the application (Form-7) under Rule 19. As this mandatory requirement of the Rule is not observed the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal should be examined afresh. ( 12 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal an appellate authority is constituted for each District under Section 116a of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1986 ('the Amended Act; in short) to hear appeals against the orders of the Land Tribunals and that authority. under Section 113 (2) of the Amended act, is vested with all the powers of an appellate Court under the C. P. C,, including the recording of additional evidence but except the power of remand. Section 19 of the Amended Act enables this court to transfer all pending Writ Petitions presented against the order of the land Tribunal to the appellate authority of the concerned District with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law. ( 13 ) WE consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned Single judge and remit the matter to the appellate authority with a direction to treat the writ Petitions Nos. 7561 to 7563/81 as appeals and to give full opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. ( 14 ) IN the result, we make the following :" (1) The Writ Appeals are allowed. (2) The order dated 21-11-1984 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos. 7561 to 7563 of 1981 is set aside. (3) The records of the Writ Petitions, except the order-sheets, are transferred to the Appellate Authority, bangalore District, Bangalore, with a direction to it to treat the Writ Petitions as appeals presented against the order dated 7-4-1981 of the Land Tribunal, Ramahagaram, in case No, LRF (7) 1166 of 1975 -76 and to dispose of the same according to law after giving, opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence, if they so desire. (4) Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority, Bangalore, on 18th May, 1987 without any further- notice from the appellate authority. (4) Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority, Bangalore, on 18th May, 1987 without any further- notice from the appellate authority. (5) Prepare a Carbon copy Of this order and despatch it along with the records of the Writ Petitions to the appellate Authority forthwith. (6) Sri S. V. Jagannath, HCGP, is permitted to file his memo of appearence in four weeks. "writ Appeals Allowed. --- *** ---