G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Subbanna, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jagannath, learned additional government Advocate and Mr. Gopal hegde, learned counsel for the respondent 2. ( 2 ) THE petitioner had questioned the validity of the Order dated 25-11-1986 passed by the land tribunal, kanakapura, under Section 48-a of the Karnataka land reforms act, 1961 (in short 'the act') before the district land reforms appellate authority, bangalore district. The said appeal before the appellate authority was registered as alra 341 of 1987 but pursuant to the abolition of the said authority by Section 6 of the Karnataka land reforms (Amendment) ACT 1990 and as provided under Section 17 thereof, on application having been made before this court being c. p. No. 218 of 1993 and the same has been allowed by the Order dated 9-1-1992 the appeal has been treated as writ petition. ( 3 ) BY the impugned Order, occupancy rights claimed by the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 2 guntas in sy. No. 7/1a of maraluvadi village, kanakapura taluk, was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had been put in possession of the land in question by virtue of mortgage deed dated 10-6-1958 executed by the 2nd respondent, since deceased, by his legal heir. ( 4 ) IT will be proper here to quote the contents of the mortgage deed which is in vernacular language and the genuineness thereof was not in dispute. It reads thus. ( 5 ) MR. Subbanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly contends that the impugned Order of the land tribunal suffers from error of jurisdiction and that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of recording his statement. He further contends that since the petitioner had made an application before the appellate authority for adducing additional evidence, therefore the matter should be remanded to the land tribunal for the said purpose. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. No basis has been disclosed to assail the jurisdiction to the land tribunal. Further it is borne out from the records of the tribunal that despite grant of sufficient opportunities, the petitioner had failed to avail the same for supporting his claim by adducing any acceptable evidence. The tribunal has specifically noticed the said aspect in the impugned order. No basis has been disclosed to assail the jurisdiction to the land tribunal. Further it is borne out from the records of the tribunal that despite grant of sufficient opportunities, the petitioner had failed to avail the same for supporting his claim by adducing any acceptable evidence. The tribunal has specifically noticed the said aspect in the impugned order. ( 7 ) SO far as the second contention is concerned, I am of the firm view that the case cannot be remanded on mere asking. To seek such a relief, the petitioner has to satisfy this court that despite grant of opportunity, the additional evidence which he intends to produce could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence on his part or for want of his knowledge of the same and that the proposed additional evidence has a material bearing on the issues involved. Neither of the said aspects have been substantiated before me. ( 8 ) IN the aforesaid view of the matter, I do not find any occasion to in terfere with the impugned Order of the land tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. --- *** --- .