NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Writ Petitions are directed against the orders of the first respondent, Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bahgalore district, dated 27. 8. 1997 in LRF. 83, 73/74-75 and the Order of the land Tribunal dated 15. 10. 1997 in LRF. 83/74-75, respectively. ( 2 ) BY the Order dated 27. 8. 1997, the Land Tribunal, Bangalore, has rejected the application filed by the Writ Petitioner in Form No. 7 and also the interlocutory application filed in the said case under section 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the legality of which is questioned in W. P. No. 24769/1997. The Land Tribunal has allowed the claim of wife and daughter of late Basavareddy in respect of survey No. 74 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and in Survey No. 90 measuring 5 acres 11 guntas and declared late Basavareddy as the tenant and directed issue of Form No. 10 in the name of wife and daughter of Basavareddy. Since common questions of facts and law are raised in these two Writ Petitions, they are taken up together for consideration and are disposed of by this common order. ( 3 ) THE claims of the parties raise an interesting question of law. One K. T. Basavareddy, the uncle of the Writ Petitioner, was a tenant in respect of Survey Nos. 74, 79 and 90. He claimed occupancy rights by filing Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal The power of attorney holder of one of the legal representative of the original landlord initially did not dispute the claim made by K. T. Basavareddy- the tenant, in respect of 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Survey No. 74, 5 acres 11 guntas in Survey No. 90 of Konappana Agrahara Village in Bangalore South Taluk. The lease deeds - Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 support this claim. Though the revenue records indicate K. T Basavareddy as the person in occupation of the said Survey Numbers, two sets of claim petitions came to be filed in Form No. 7 before the Land tribunal, one by the Writ Petitioner- R. Prakash, to an extent of 4 acres in Survey No. 90 alleging that K. T. Basavareddy was his adopted father and there was partition between himself and his adopted father in the year 1970, wherein 4 acres of land in Survey no. 90 has been given to him, and he has been a permanent tenant of the said land. The application filed by him under Section 48-A (1)of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, is produced at Annexure 'b' in w. P. No. 24769/1997. ( 4 ) K. T. Basavareddy filed a separate application in Form No. 7 as in Annexure 'c' produced along with the Writ Petition, claiming 2 acres 33 guntas in Survey No. 90 retained by him after giving 4 acres to his adopted son and he is a permanent tenant of Survey no. 74 and 79 also. These applications came up for consideration before the Land Tribunal initially in the year 1979 and the Tribunal, by its Order dated 25. 9. 1979 granted occupancy rights to an extent of 3 acres in Survey No. 90 in favour of Writ Petitioner- R. Prakash, and 1 acre 30 guntas in Survey No. 74 and one acre in Survey no. 90 in favour of K. T. Basavareddy. The Tribunal rejected the claim of K. T. Basavareddy to an extent of 39 guntas in Survey No. 79 and 1 acre 27 guntas in Survey No. 90, as he has purchased certain lands in the said Survey Numbers. Therefore, he was not a tenant as on the date of vesting of land to that extent. The power of attorney holder of one of the lands challenged the order of the Land Tribunal dated 25. 9. 1979 in W,p. No. 19817/79 and this Court by its order dated 8. 2. 1984 quashed the impugned order on the ground that no enquiry as required under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms rules has been held before passing the impugned order, and, therefore, remitted the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to hold fresh enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land reforms Rules, 1974. During the pendency of the proceedings of remittal, K. T. Basavareddy died and the Writ Petitioner made an application under Section 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, for impleading him as the legal representative of late k. T. Basavareddy in the claim petition filed by K. T. Basavareddy. The wife and daughter of Basavareddy also filed the L. R. application. The parties were examined by their respective Counsel and documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal. The wife and daughter of Basavareddy also filed the L. R. application. The parties were examined by their respective Counsel and documentary evidence was produced before the Tribunal. After prolonged inquiry, the Tribunal has passed the impugned Orders, which are the subject matters of these two Writ Petitions. ( 5 ) THE impugned orders are challenged by the Writ Petitioner on the following grounds: a) that the Tribunal has abrogated itself the powers of Civil Court where the validity of the registered partition deed has been assailed. by deceased Basavareddy and his legal representatives- respondents 3 and 4, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law; b) The Tribunal contrary to the direction issued by this Court in the Writ Petition to consider the application flied by the Writ Petitioner in Form No. 7 should also be considered on merits along with the claim petition of deceased Basavareddy, committed a grave error in seeking to exclude the petitioner from the proceedings; c) The Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim made by the Writ petitioner who is the adopted son of the deceased Basavareddy, specially where the claim of the Writ Petitioner is not disputed by the owner of the land- 5th respondent; d) The Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope and ambit of its powers under Section 48-A (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, read with Section 24 of the said Act, by taking irrelevant aspects in favour of respondents 3 and 4 on extraneous considerations. At the interlocutory stage of considering the application under Section 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the other questions regarding the claim for tenancy were irrelevant, particularly in view of the fact that the 5th respondent has not contested the claim of the petitioner. The Tribunal has also erred in properly assessing the evidence and, therefore, improper assessment of the evidence and other matters require judicial review in the hands of this Court under the extra-ordinary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal has also erred in properly assessing the evidence and, therefore, improper assessment of the evidence and other matters require judicial review in the hands of this Court under the extra-ordinary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) IN so far as W. P. No. 33390/97 is concerned, learned Senior counsel sought to contend that some of the admissions made by late Basavareddy regarding his relationship with the petitioner and also the partition effected by him and the writ proceedings filed by the Writ Petitioner and late Basavareddy, and these are all the facts which go to prove his relationship and tenancy and the Tribunal has erred in granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3 and 4 the wife and daughter of late Basavareddy, and the order of the land Tribunal is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) SRI C. V. Nagesh, learned Counsel for contesting respondents 3 and 4, attempted to justify the impugned orders passed by the land Tribunal. He has taken me through the evidence of Writ petitioner himself, who has abandoned his claim as the adopted son of late K. T Basavareddy, instead claimed the relationship of a 'saku Maga', a fostered son, which doey net give him the status of a son to claim any right in the property, in view of the provisions of sections 24 and 21 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961, the Writ Petitioner is not clearly entitled for any division of tenanted property. Late Basavareddy has questioned the partition deed said to have been executed in favour of Writ Petitioner on the ground of fraud played on him and also brought to the notice of the Court the fraud played by the Writ Petitioner by obtaining the signatures of late Basavareddy in order to file the occupancy rights before the land Tribunal Sri C. V. Nagesh has further submitted that the conclusions of the Tribunal are based on appreciation of the evidence on record and the decision of the Tribunal does not call for interference in the hands of this Court as the conclusions reached by the Tribunal are quite justifiable in law. The learned Counsel has relied upon some of the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court in support of his contentions. Those decisions will be referred to at the appropriate stage. The learned Counsel has relied upon some of the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court in support of his contentions. Those decisions will be referred to at the appropriate stage. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, the two questions which arise for consideration in these two Writ Petitions are: 1. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in law in dismissing the application of the Writ Petitioner filed in Form No. 7 and also erred in dismissing his application filed under Section 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. to bring him on record as the legal representative in the connected proceeding? 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the wife and daughter of late K. T. Basavareddy is not sustainable in law? ( 9 ) THE law regarding certain contentions canvassed for consideration are now settled and those contentions can be disposed of, at the initial stage itself. Section 21 of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961, prohibits subdivision or subletting of the land held by a tenant or assignment of any interest therein. However, it is provided that where the tenant dies: (i) if he is a member of joint family, surviving members of the said family; and (ii) if he is not a member of a joint family, his heirs shall be entitled to a partition and sub-divide the land leased, subject to the following conditions:-a) each sharer shall hold his share as a separate tenant; b) the rent payable in respect of the land leased shall be apportioned among the sharers, as the case may be, according to the share allotted to them; c) the area allotted to each sharer shall not be less than a fragment; (d) if such area is less than a fragment the shares shall be entitled to enjoy the income jointly, but the land shall not be divided by metes and bounds; e) if any question arises regarding the apportionment of the rent payable by the sharer it shall be decided by the tahasildar, provided that if any question of law is involved the Tahasildar shall refer it to the Court. ( 10 ) THE question whether a tenant can bequeath his or her right of tenancy in favour of a third a party under a will? ( 10 ) THE question whether a tenant can bequeath his or her right of tenancy in favour of a third a party under a will? came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in THIMMAKKA, wife OF VENKANNA NAIK vs LAND TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS the Division Bench, on consideration of the provisions of Sections 21 (1) and 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, held as follows: "under Section 21 (1) there is a bar against sub-division or sub-letting of the land held by a tenant or assignment of any interest thereunder. Any assignment in contrary to the said bar is invalid. (Of course, there is an exception in the case of a permanent tenant ). This bar cannot be overcome by a tenant by creating a Will. What he cannot do during his life time cannot be held to be capable of being done immediately after his death. Second proviso to Section 21 (1) highlights this aspect by conferring certain rights only on the surviving members of the family or his heirs if a tenant can Will away his interest or a portion thereof, then the second proviso also will be nullified by enabling the legatee to have the land partitioned in his favour. Section 24 of the Act states that "where a tenant dies, the landlord shall be deemed to have continued the tenancy to the heirs of such tenant on the same terms and conditions on which such tenant was holding at the time of hes death". This statutory provision is also against the concept of bequeathing the tenant's interest by Will, statute has peremptorily provided that succession which cannot be defeated by the tenant by bequeathing his interest. " ( 11 ) FOLLOWING the said Judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court in VIMAL APPAYYA MARKAL vs THE LAND TRIBUNAL and OTHERS held that the tenant cannot assign his interest in the leased out land by way of Will to a stranger to the family who is not one of his heirs noticed in the Provision. Bequest under a Will is an Assignment that deals with lease. Bequest under a Will is an Assignment that deals with lease. Hence, tenanted land is not subject to a division by partition or any other mode and assignment or transfer of interest therein is clearly prohibited under Section 21 (1)of the Act in view of the second part of Section 21 of the Act which enables the members of the joint family or the surviving members of the said family or his heirs to succeed to his rights in the tenanted land. This is in consonance with the purport of the Act wherein the tiller of the land or his heirs would get the occupancy rights of the tenanted lands and object of the Act cannot be defeated by a tenant by alienating the said land either by Will or by partition. More so, when the land is vested with the Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. he has no right of alienation or assignment of rights at that stage. Therefore, the contention canvassed for consideration of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner that the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting his claim filed in Form No. 7 is rejected, as it is a settled proposition of law. ( 12 ) IMPUGNED orders are questioned firstly on the ground that the Tribunal has passed the order dated 27,8. 1997 virtually disposing the claim made by the Writ Petitioner by rejecting his application filed in Form No. 7 and his application filed under Section 24 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act. This is contrary to the direction issued by this Court in the Writ Petition No 19817/79 wherein the Court directed the Tribunal to hold fresh enquiry. ( 13 ) SRI C. V. Nagesh, learned Counsel for the respondents, drew my attention to the Order of the Tribunal wherein the Writ Petitioner consciously subjected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try his application filed by him in Form No. 7 and also his application filed under Section 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Tribunal has passed an order directing the Writ Petitioner who was an applicant before the Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in respect of four acres of land in Survey No. 90 to lead his evidence by examining himself and by marking certain documents in support of his claim. The Tribunal has passed an order directing the Writ Petitioner who was an applicant before the Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in respect of four acres of land in Survey No. 90 to lead his evidence by examining himself and by marking certain documents in support of his claim. In the light of this material, I do not find any merit in the contention of the Writ Petitioner that the Tribunal has not followed the direction of this Court issued in W. P. 19817/79. There is no illegality in disposing of the main application filed in Form No. 7 while considering the application filed by him under Section 24 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act. ( 14 ) IN a decision reported in DODDARAMAIAH vs STATE OF karnataka, it is held as follows: "by disposing of the main application, while considering the interlocutory application, the Tribunal did not commit any illegality, where in view of the documentary evidence, no other conclusion was possible. " therefore, where the party has consciously let in evidence on the merits of his claim and also on the question of his status as the adopted son of Basava Reddy, the Tribunal has not committed any manifest error in disposing of his application. I fully agree with the view expressed in the case cited supra. It would have been better if the Tribunal had clubbed both the claims and decided the claims of the parties by a common order, But having regard to the finding of ihe Tribunal that the Writ Petitioner is not an adopted son and is not entitled for grant of the occupancy rights, I do not ftnd any infirmity in the impugned order, ( 15 ) THE main contention canvassed for consideration by the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner is that the tribunal has abrogated itself the power of Civil Court in deciding the vafidity of the registered Partition Deed between the Writ petitione- and the late Basava Reddy. Before answering this question, f feel it necessary to consider - whether the Writ Petitioner was an adopted son of Basava Reddy at all? Before answering this question, f feel it necessary to consider - whether the Writ Petitioner was an adopted son of Basava Reddy at all? The learned senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has relied heavily upon the pleadings made by Basava Reddy in the application filed in form No. 7, the averments made in the Writ Petitions filed by the Writ Petitioner and Basava reddy, the affidavits filed by Basava Reddy along with the Writ petitioner. ( 16 ) ADMITTEDLY, there is no Adoption Deed. No ceremonies of adoption is pleaded nor proved. The adoption is disputed by the legal representatives of Basava Reddy. Basava Reddy himself has assailed the alleged registered Partition Deed and so called adoption, in the suit filed by him for cancellation of the said Partition Deed, which according to him was a product of fraud and concoction, The copy of plaint presented by him before the City Civil Court is produced as annexure to the proceedings. The Writ Petitioner got himself examined as P. W. 1 in support of not only his claim as adopted son of Basava Reddy, but aiso his claim for grant of occupancy rights both on the ground of his status as adopted son of Basava Reddy and also on the basis of registered Partition Deed, which is produced in the proceedings. ( 17 ) DURING the course of his evidence (in examination-in-chief), the Writ Petitioner has abondoned his status as the adopted son of late Basava Reddy, instead, he claimed as his fostered son (Saku maga ). He has asserted this fact in the cross-examination. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the Writ Petitioner is the son of a Superintendent Engineer of Government of Karnataka. The Writ petitioner himself obtained a Master's Degree in Engineering and is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works department, Government of Karnataka, He was aware of the difference between an adopted son and a fostered son. However, in the Writ Petition, it is alleged that he was hard of hearing, his mother tongue is Telugu and he could not distinguish the two word's 'adopted son' and 'fostered son' (Saku Maga) and an error has occurred in his evidence. However, in the Writ Petition, it is alleged that he was hard of hearing, his mother tongue is Telugu and he could not distinguish the two word's 'adopted son' and 'fostered son' (Saku Maga) and an error has occurred in his evidence. In my opinion, it is too late in the day to contend that the Writ Petitioner who is born and brought up at bangalore, educated in Bangalore, whose second language is kannada and who transacts daily in this language, now pleads his ignorance of Kannada language, which, under the circumstance, is difficult to accept. His attention was specifically drawn to his knowledge of Kannada and the veracity of his evidence. Therefore, the contention of Sri C. V. Nagesh, learned Counsel for the respondents that the Writ Petitioner has abondoned his claim as adopted son of Basava Reddy, which claim is also not established by the Writ Petitioner by placing any evidence before the Court, has to be accepted. I, therefore, reject the contention canvassed by the learned senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in this behalf I find no illegality in the conclusions reached by the Tribunal on this question. ( 18 ) NOW, the question for consideration is- Whether this opinion expressed by the Tribunal has usurped the power of the Civil Court? the precise question for consideration at this stage is: Whether the tribunal can consider these questions while determining the question-whether the applicant is a tenant or not? This question, in my opinion, is no longer res Integra. It was a subject of discussion in [he umpteen decisions of this Court. The said question cropped up again in the case of BOODA POOJARY vs THOMU POOJARTHY. It was contended before the Full Bench that the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority were not competent to decide- whether the joint family was the tenant of the lands in question if a question arises as to whether the property was a joint family property or it is an exclusive property of the individual member of the family? The consideration of said question falls outside the scope of Section 112-b of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Since that question coupled with other contentions raised before the Court assumed some importance, the questions were referred to the larger Bench. The questions referred were: 1. The consideration of said question falls outside the scope of Section 112-b of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Since that question coupled with other contentions raised before the Court assumed some importance, the questions were referred to the larger Bench. The questions referred were: 1. What is the scope of jurisdiction conferred upon the Land tribunals under Section 112 B (b) of the Act in deciding the claim of occupancy right made under Section 48a of the Act? 2. Is it not open to the Land Tribunals to decide all questions that arise while considering Form No. 7 filed for the purpose of granting or refusing the occupancy right claimed therein? 3. When a jurisdiction is conferred upon the Land Tribunal to decide whether a person is a tenant or not does it not take (1) The Tribunals have jurisdiction to go into all questions bearing upon whether the applicant is a tenant or not under section 112 (B) (b) of the Act for the purpose of deciding the claim of occupancy rights made under Section 48a of the Act. (2) It is open to the Land Tribunal to decide all questions that arise while considering Form No. 7 for the purpose of granting or refusing the occupancy rights claimed therein. (3) In view of the answers to questions 1 and 3. the answer to question No. 3 follows, that the Land Tribunal takes into its jurisdiction all controversies having bearing upon the claim in order to decide the question whether a person is a tenant or not and (4) In the light of the discussion made above with reference to the cases referred to in Question No. 4, we are of the opinion there is no conflict among Mudakappa's case [1978 (1) Karnataka law Journal 459]; Guurvappa's case [i. L. R 1985 Karnataka 386] and Appi Belchadthi's case [1982 (2) Karnataka Law Journal 565]. As to the decision in Yellappa's case (R. F. A. No. 26 of 1975, d. D. 11. 6. 1975) the position is made clear in para-11 in the case of Mudakappa, which holds good. " ( 19 ) THE Judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in MUDAKAPPAS case (1978 (1) KLJ 459) was challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court by its Judgment dated 28. 09. 6. 1975) the position is made clear in para-11 in the case of Mudakappa, which holds good. " ( 19 ) THE Judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in MUDAKAPPAS case (1978 (1) KLJ 459) was challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court by its Judgment dated 28. 09. 1993 in MUDAKAPPA vs RUDRAPPA5 held as under: "a Forum was created and the Forum is enjoined to enquire into not only the nature of the land but also the entitlement for registration as a tenant. When inter se claim's for tenancy rights have been set up, it has been empowered with jurisdiction to decide that question as to who is the tenant in possession of the land prior to the date of vesting and entitled to be registered as a tenant with the State Government and its decision shall be final. The Civil Court's jurisdiction under Section 9 of CPC by necessary implication, therefore, stood excluded. It is seen, that the words lenant' 'the Tribunal' and the 'joint family' have been defined under the Act if one of the members of the family cultivates the land, it is for and on behalf of the joint family. Under these circumstances, pending the suit, when the question arose whether the appellant or joint family is the tenant, that question should be decided by the Tribunal alone under Section 48 A read with Section 133 and not by the Civil Court. It is needless to mention that when the Tribunal constituted under the act has been invested with the power and jurisdiction to determine the rival claims, it should record the evidence and decide the matter so that its correctness could be tested either in an appeal or by Judicial Review under Article 226 or under Article 227, as the case may be. But that cannot, by necessary implication, be concluded that when rival claims are made for tenancy rights, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted or its decision is subject of the decision once over by the Civil Court. It is clear from section 48-A (5) and Section 112 B (bbb) read with Section 133, that the decision of the Tribunal is final under Section 133 (iii ). The Civil Court has power only to decide other issues. It is clear from section 48-A (5) and Section 112 B (bbb) read with Section 133, that the decision of the Tribunal is final under Section 133 (iii ). The Civil Court has power only to decide other issues. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that the rival claims for tenancy rights or the nature of the tenancy are exclusively left to be dealt with by the Civil Court. (Paras - 7 and 8 ). " the Apex Court while upholding the law laid down by the Division bench of this Court in Mudakappa's case, held that the law laid down in APPI BELCHADTHI vs SHESHI BELCHADTHI is not a good law. ( 20 ) THE law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in BOODA poojary vs THOMU POOJARY is the law which is in force and therefore, the contention that the Tribunal had no power to decide the status of the Writ Petitioner while deciding his claim for grant of occupancy rights, in my opinion, has no force, if he is a member of a joint family consisting of himself and late Basava Reddy and if basava Reddy was the original permanent tenant of the land in question, the Writ Petitioner is always free to claim his share in the land of Basava Reddy. Therefore, the Tribunal was within its power to decide that question canvassed for consideration before it as the status of the Writ Petitioner before the Tribunal was necessary to determine his claim for grant of occupancy rights. The respondents drew the attention of the Court to some other material in support of their contention that the entire claim made by the Writ Petitioner was a product of fraud. They rely upon the entries made in the voters' List from the years 1975 till 1987, the residential address of the Writ Petitioner, the partition effected between himself and his natural father - Rama Reddy. It is undisputed that the petitioner was a student in the year 1970 when an oral partition aileged in his application in Form No. 7. He graduated from the Engineering College only in the year 1979, when he joined his service. The lease was not in his favour. He claims a tenancy under a partition, which is prohibited under Section 21 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. He graduated from the Engineering College only in the year 1979, when he joined his service. The lease was not in his favour. He claims a tenancy under a partition, which is prohibited under Section 21 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is true that the 5th respondent who was the owner of the land in question, had not disputed the claim made by the Writ Petitioner. But that was no ground for the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights. But Order of the Tribunal was set aside by this Court on some other ground. These contentions cropped up only after the death or Basava reddy. Serious allegations are made by the legal representatives of the deceased Basava Reddy before the Land Tribunal that the Writ petitioner and his father, took undue advantage of the ignorance and illiteracy of Basava Reddy, and attempted to knock off his property; to cause loss to his natural heirs namely, the respondents; and unlawful gain for themselves. In view of the fact that the Writ petitioner was a student between the years 1970 and 1975, he could not have cultivated the land. There is no scrap of material produced by the Writ Petitioner in proof of the claim that he was cultivating the land in question. While the registered Partition Deed shows that all extent of 3 acres of land in Survey-No. 90 was given to him, he claimed occupancy rights to an extent of four acres in his application. The Tribunal held an enquiry at first instance and without considering any of the material, granted occupancy rights as claimed. Death of basava Reddy came in handy and a "blessing in disguise" for his legal representatives to bring all these facts before the Tribunal at a subsequent stage. The Writ Petitioner has made serious allegations against the Chairman and Members of the Land Tribunal that they exceeded their jurisdiction for extraneous consideration. These allegations are not supported by any material. Considering the contentions raised by the Writ Petitioner from any angle, I find that the order of the Tribunal is quite justifiable and sustainable in law. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. ( 21 ) THE Writ Petitioner has also challenged the occupancy rights granted in favour of the legal representatives of late Basava Reddy in its entirety. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. ( 21 ) THE Writ Petitioner has also challenged the occupancy rights granted in favour of the legal representatives of late Basava Reddy in its entirety. In its first order, the Tribunal found that certain extent of land in Survey Nos. 74 and 90 was purchased by late Basava reddy from the original owners and could not have claimed occupancy rights to that extent of land purchased by him, as he was the owner. No such evidence was produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has also not applied its mind to this effect. ( 22 ) BASAVA Reddy had filed an application in Form No. 7 only to the extent of 2 acres and 33 guntas in Survey No. 90. We are not concerned with the claim made in respect of ether survey numbers as the claim is not in dispute. There cannot be any dispute regarding the claim made by the legal representatives of Basava Reddy for grant of occupancy rights, in respect of 2 acres and 33 guntas and they are entitled for grant of occupancy lights to that extent. The question is whether the legal representatives of Basava Reddy, namely his wife and daughter, are entitled for grant of occupancy rights to the entire extent of 5 acres 11 guntas of land in survey no. 90. The Tribunal which has considered this question, held that basava Reddy was a permanent tenant of Survey No. 90, and therefore, his legal representatives are entitied for grant of occupancy rights. It is undisputed that Basava Reddy was a permanent tenant of Survey No. 90. But it is very pertinent to note that he made the application claiming occupancy rights only to the extent of 2 acres 33 guntas in Survey No. 90. At no stage, he claimed the entire extent of land in Survey No. 90. Whether the claim made by the Writ petitioner was tenable in law, is not a question, which creeps in while considering the claim of the natural heirs of Basava Reddy. It is submitted by Sri C. V. Nagesh, learned Counsel for respondents, that after the disposal of the claim or the Writ Petitioner, an amendment application was made by the legal representatives of original applicant claiming occupancy rights to the entire extent of land in Survey No. 90. It is submitted by Sri C. V. Nagesh, learned Counsel for respondents, that after the disposal of the claim or the Writ Petitioner, an amendment application was made by the legal representatives of original applicant claiming occupancy rights to the entire extent of land in Survey No. 90. Admitting for a moment that such an application was made by the legal representatives and allowed by the Land tribunal, whether the Tribunal is right in entertaining a time barred application for amendment of the claim. It is undisputed that the tenant or his legal representatives could claim occupancy rights within the time provided by the Government under the Act. ( 23 ) THE applications made by the Writ Petitioner and late K. T. Basava Reddy, under Section 48a (1) of the Act, for registering them as occupants under Section 45 of the Act are available on record, the copies of which are enclosed as and exures to the Writ Petition. The Writ Petitioner claimed to be registered as occupant to the extent of four acres out of Survey No. 90 on the ground that it was given to him by his adopted father-K. T. Basava Reddy, in an oral partition while K. T. Basava Reddy specifically claimed occupancy rights in respect of Survey Nos. 74, 79 and 90. In column No. 6, he has mentioned and claimed 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy. No. 74, 1 acre 39 guntas in Sy. No. 79 and 2 acres 33 guntas in Sy. No. 90. He has specifically mentioned that he had given four acres of land in Sy. No. 90 to his adopted son - R. Prakash in an oral partition and the occupancy of the remaining land of 2 acres 33 guntas be granted to him, and he is entitled for Khatha in respect of Sy. Nos. 74, 79 and 2 acres 33 guntas out of Sy. No. 90. On careful perusal of this claim made by the parties, I find no ambiguity in the claim. Basava Reddy made a Claim only to the extent of 2 acres 33 guntas in Sy. No. 90. That was the extent of land granted to him by the Tribunal in its order dated 25. 9. 1979. No. 90. On careful perusal of this claim made by the parties, I find no ambiguity in the claim. Basava Reddy made a Claim only to the extent of 2 acres 33 guntas in Sy. No. 90. That was the extent of land granted to him by the Tribunal in its order dated 25. 9. 1979. However, that order is no longer in force as the same was challenged before this Court in W. P. No. 19817/79 and the said order of the Tribunal was quashed in the said Petition. ( 24 ) THE subsequent conduct of Basava Reddy also shows that he restricted his Claim only to the extent of 2 acres 33 guntas in sy. No. 90. This material is extracted to show that Basava Reddy made a claim only to the extent of 2 acres 33 guntas and nothing more. The learned Counsel has referred to an amendment application made by the L. Rs. of late Basava Reddy amending the extent of land in Sy. No. 90. There is no reference to this amendment in the impugned order, The Tribunal tried to wriggle out of this situation by relying upon the Judgments of the Apex Court, stating that procedural law is not a tyrant but a servant not an obstruction but an aid to justice. The Code of Civil Procedure is a body of procedural law designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishments and penalties. The Tribunal has misread the Judgments, which have no bearing on the facts of this case. ( 25 ) A person who claims to be a tenant or permanent tenant is required to make an application in Form No. 7 under Section 48 A (1) for registering any occupation under Section 45 of the Act. Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, enumerates the procedure to be followed by making an application in Form No. 7, furnishing the particulars of all the lands held under each separate tenancy in one or more than one Taluk in respect of which the applicant claims to be registered as an occupant. On receipt of the application, the Tahsildar shall send the extracts of the applications to the Tribunals concerned. On receipt of the application, the Tahsildar shall send the extracts of the applications to the Tribunals concerned. He shall verify the particulars mentioned in the application with reference to the revenue records including record of rights wherever they are prepared and also note the same on the application. The lands held by or in the possession of the tenants vested with the Government under Section 44 of the Act. The consequence that ensued upon are - all rights, title and interest vesting in the owners of such lands and other persons interested in such lands shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State government free from all encumbrances; vesting of tenanted lands is a legal fiction as a result of the amended provisions of the karnataka Land Reforms Act; and in the absence of any claim, the land continues to vest with the Government and the Government has ample power for disposal of surplus land. Section 76 of the Act provides that where under the provisions of Chapter III any land vested in the State Government, the Tahsiidar may after removing any obstruction that may be offered, forth with take possession of the land. There is no material to show that the L. Rs. have made any claim as provided under Section 77-A of the Act which is inserted by Act No. 23 of 1998. The Tribunal has failed to consider these aspects before granting occupancy rights to the L. Rs. of Basava reddy to the entire extent of 5 acres 11 guntas of land in Sy. No. 90. The Tribunal has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to decide a claim, which was not made and that reading of the application filed in Form no. 7 filed by late Basava Reddy itself is erroneous. In my opinion, the Writ Petition succeeds only to the extent of quashing the order of the Land Tribunal dated 15. 10. 1997 granting occupancy rights to the L. Rs. of Basava Reddy in Sy. No. 90 exceeding 2 acres 33 guntas claim made by him in Form No. 7. ( 26 ) IN the result W. P. No. 24769/1997 is dismissed. W. P. No. 33390/ 1997 is allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal dated 15. 10. 1997 granting occupancy fights to respondents 3 and 4 to the extent of 2 acres 33 guntas in Sy. ( 26 ) IN the result W. P. No. 24769/1997 is dismissed. W. P. No. 33390/ 1997 is allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal dated 15. 10. 1997 granting occupancy fights to respondents 3 and 4 to the extent of 2 acres 33 guntas in Sy. No. 90 of Konappana Agrahara Village in bangalore South Taluk is confirmed and grant of occupancy rights exceeding 2 acres 33 guntas of land is Sy. No. 90 of the said village is quashed.