ORDER T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—The impugned order in the above writ Petition is the one passed by the second Respondent in LRY.103/443/TRI.2553 of 1976-77, dated 4.3.1986 which is filed as Annexure-L to Writ Petition No. 6737 of 1986 which now stands converted to the above writ Petition. 2. First Petitioner was the mother of other Petitioners and they are members of Joint Hindu Family. The land in Sy. No. 155/2 situated in Yemal Tenka village is a garden land of an extent of 2 acres 62 cents. It was purchased by the father of the first Respondent from the children of one Krishnayya in 1947. Even at that time, the property was under chalageni tenancy of the father of the Petitioners. It is so mentioned in the deed. Even after purchase, the tenancy continued. In the entire land, there was a building used for Elementary School and the portion of the school building that has been built was allowed to be enjoyed by the landlord and the landlord was recovering the rent. The Petitioners are not claiming the land occupied by the School. However, they claim that the rest of the land is an agricultural land where the Petitioner and the brother of second Petitioner have built the houses and were cultivating the land in question. In the Gazette Notification dated 9.11.1967 at a time 23 cents in the said survey number was acquired for the purpose of formation of road. The chalageni tenancy was mentioned. The husband of the first Petitioner was shown as Chalagenidar and the land is a garden land. 3. In the award notification also, the husband of the first Petitioner was shown as tenant in possession. Though the land was acquired, the said husband of the first Petitioner, viz., Sankappa Achary did not claim any compensation. Sankappa Achary never had any wrath of the father of the first Respondent who comes from the King's family. 4. The Petitioner No. 1(a) filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre 27 cents as by that time, portions of land had been taken away by the landlord. Three sale deeds were purported to be brought in favour of Petitioner No. 1(a) and his brothers wherein the first Respondent's father was supposed to sell the portion of that land. This formula of sale was adopted to defeat the rights of tenancy. Those sale deeds are void. Three sale deeds were purported to be brought in favour of Petitioner No. 1(a) and his brothers wherein the first Respondent's father was supposed to sell the portion of that land. This formula of sale was adopted to defeat the rights of tenancy. Those sale deeds are void. However, the Tribunal after enquiry, granted occupancy right only in respect of 50 cents of land on 22.12.1981. On challenge in Writ Petition No. 19424 of 1982 and also Writ Petition No. 8963 of 1982, the matter was remitted back on 29.9.1982. After remand, Petitioners' claim was rejected and it is that order that is challenged in this writ Petition. 5. On the above facts, it is submitted by Mr. Rajeev, counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are agriculturists by profession though Petitioners manufacture some agricultural implements during their spare time. The Petitioners are not claiming those portions where the Panchayat building and school building have been built. The Petitioners are residing in a house built by them. It is further contended that no enquiry under Rule 17 or Section 34 has been conducted. The building area is not claimed by them. The claim of 21 guntas does not have any building at all, but there are number of coconut trees and other fruit bearing trees and thus the order was assailed. 6. On the other hand, Sri Vasudev Aithal, counsel appearing for first Respondent contended that on their own showing, the property is not an agricultural land and therefore, the rejection of the application for occupancy right by the landlord is correct. The finding rendered by the Tribunal is that the Petitioners are not agriculturists and the land is not an agricultural land. In fact the finding that they are manufacturing agricultural implements as a profession and they are not agriculturists by themselves has been found as a fact by the Tribunal and such a finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court sitting in writ proceedings. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the respective Counsel, I am of the view that the order of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the respective Counsel, I am of the view that the order of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with. As per the decision of this Court in Arjunappa vs. L.T. Kundagol, 1981 (1) Kar LJ 29: It is settled law that the Tribunal before granting an application under Section 48A(1) of the Act has to satisfy himself as to whether the land for which the occupancy right is claimed was a tenanted land immediately prior to 1.3.1974 and the person claiming it was in the possession and cultivation of that land at that point of time. It is also seen from the decision of Johirodin Vs. Land Tribunal, 1979 (1) KLJ 207 that "the essential qualification of a person entitled to be registered as an occupant is that he was a tenant in respect of the land of which he claims occupancy right before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating personally". It is also to be seen that in Ramsingh H.R. Vs. Nagesh Rao and Another, 1977 (2) Kar LJ 329, it is held "the person should depend upon agriculture for his livelihood which means he should do personally or through his family members or by hired labour or by servant on wages but not payable in crop share". 8. It is also held by the Tribunal that "it is settled law in Sri Muniyellappa Vs. B.M. Krishnamurthy and Others, AIR 1977 Kant 137 that a person whose possession of agricultural land does not rest on Agrarian relation cannot invoke jurisdiction of Land Tribunal under Section 45 of the Land Reforms Act". It is settled law in Mire Masudi Ina vs. Land Tribunal, Shirigoppa and Others, the decision of the division bench reported in 1977 (1) KLJ page 263. "If the record of right do not show the name of the person claiming be the tenant as the person cultivating the land immediately prior to 1st March 1974 which is the relevant date the presumption is that the land has not vested in the State Government under Section 44 of the Act until that presumption is rebutted in this by the State or by the person claiming be the tenant the presumption is that the land holder is personally cultivating the land immediately prior to 1st March, 1974. 9. 9. It is found by the Tribunal that the land is not an agricultural land. S. No. 155/2B is a non-agricultural land classified as "Punja" in the Revenue Records and admittedly it is an house site on the National Highway N.H. 17 a portion of the very land has been acquired to National Highway. This fact is admitted by the applicant Madhava Acharya and all his four brothers viz., Vasudeva Acharya, Sadashiva and Bhaskara, in the Sale Deeds dated 26.4.1973 by which the applicant has purchased 0.09 cents of land and his brother Vasudeva Acharya 0.07 cents of land the recitals in these Sale Deeds clearly says that the land is a non-agricultural house site. Furthermore the applicant has admitted in the cross examination before the Land Tribunal that this land is not an agricultural land KANNADA MATTER The Chairman of the Tribunal in the judgment dated 22.12.1981 in LRY 103/443/Tri 2533/76/3 clearly stated that the land in question is agricultural land "KANNADA MATTER" It is admitted by the applicant Madhava Acharya in his written affidavit before the Land Tribunal in Para 5 he admits "I am in separate possession of only 0.09 cents of land and further he gives an statement before the Tribunal that the land excepting this 0.09 cents purchased by him is in the possession of the Landlord Shanthiraja Arasu (father of the Respondent). "KANNADA MATTER" and at the end of the para in Affidavit "I am entitled to recover possession of the lands sold to strangers after obtaining an occupancy certificate. The Chairman's statement as stated above (KANNADA MATTER) clearly proves that the land claimed by the applicants not in their possession and enjoyment on or before 1.3.1974. There is no cultivation on this land. The applicant Madhava Acharya in the course of the cross-examination by the Respondent before the Land Tribunal admits that he or his father has not done any cultivation on the land. "KANNADA MATTER". The applicants are not Agriculturists nor there is Agrarian relationships between the landlord and tenant is admitted by applicant in his statement during cross examination. "KANNADA MATTER". The R.T.C. does not show the person claiming as the person cultivating immediately prior to 1.3.1974 as it shows the name of the landlord. The presumption is that the land has not vested in the government under Section 44 as it is also settled law in Beerappa Lakkappa Vs. "KANNADA MATTER". The R.T.C. does not show the person claiming as the person cultivating immediately prior to 1.3.1974 as it shows the name of the landlord. The presumption is that the land has not vested in the government under Section 44 as it is also settled law in Beerappa Lakkappa Vs. Land Tribunal, Bijapur, 1977 (1) KLJ Page 25. 10. For the above reasons I find that the Petitioners have not made out any case and consequently, the writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.