N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 15-6-2002 made in KLR/t/sr/554 (A) passed by the Land Tribunal, Ba- galkot. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant cultivating Sy. No. 106 measuring 12 acres 10 guntas situated at Chikkarashellikeri Village, bagalkot Taluk. He has filed an application on earlier occasion before the Tribunal claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question and the occupancy right was granted in favour of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the 2nd respondent has filed writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 3065 of 1997. The said petition was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with a direction to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Tribunal has issued notice to the petitioner and respondent 2 and after considering oral and documentary evidence rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 15-6-2002. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has presented this petition. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional government Advocate and the learned Counsel for respondent 2. ( 4 ) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, there is a specific direction issued by this Court directing the Tribunal to decide the matter in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioner and respondent 2. The said direction has not been complied with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has proceeded to pass the impugned order on the basis of the earlier evidence given by the parties. No fresh evidence was recorded and no enquiry was conducted as provided under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent has admitted before the Tribunal that he has no objection to grant occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner. In view of this admission, the Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of the petitioner on earlier occasion. This aspect of the matter has not at all been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The petitioner was cultivating the land in question for the past several years and his name has been shown in Record of Rights as tenant till 1968-69. This aspect of the matter has not at all been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The petitioner was cultivating the land in question for the past several years and his name has been shown in Record of Rights as tenant till 1968-69. Therefore, he has made out a case for grant of occupancy rights and this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. Hence, he has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel for respondent 2, inter alia, contended and justified the impugned order. Further she submitted that form 7 filed by the petitioner is not at all maintainable in view of total bar under Section 108 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. But she has pointed out that in Miscellaneous Case No. 75 of 1972 on the file of the district Judge, Bijapur, initiated by Smt. Mallawwa against the petitioner and others, the petitioner has been appointed as Court of wards and manager to manage the properties, by order dated 29-7-1975, subject to following conditions:" (1) Opponent No. 1 Laxmappa be and is hereby appointed manager of the properties in question and also the guardian of the person of Shiddappa; (2) He shall not be entitled to, any remuneration for the management of the estate; (3) That he shall submit half-yearly accounts of the management of the estate from the date of the institution of this petition i. e. , 2-9-1972 and the first report shall be filed on 1-11-1975 and the subsequent reports on the 1st of May and 1st of november, each year; (4) The manager shall not without the Court's permission incur any expenses and prove for sanction except the day-to-day expenses of cultivation of the lands; (5) All the income from the estate excluding the cost of cultivation shall be deposited into the Court to the credit of this proceeding and the maintenance of the lunatic shall be drawn from that amount". Therefore, she has submitted that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal on the ground that he has been appointed as manager in respect of the property in question. Therefore, she has submitted that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal on the ground that he has been appointed as manager in respect of the property in question. If that is the case, he could not have filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights claiming as a tenant contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act. To substantiate the same, she has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dhondiba Hanmanta desai v Land Tribunal, Belgaum and Others. This Court has held that the tenant in respect of land under the management of Court of wards- not entitled to registration of occupancy rights. She has further submitted that if the ratio of the law laid down by this Court is taken into consideration, the writ petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold. ( 6 ) I have perused the impugned order carefully and reassessed the material on record with the assistance of the learned Counsels for the parties. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that in Miscellaneous Case No. 75 of 1972, the petitioner has been appointed as the manager subject to certain conditions. When he was appointed as the manager to manage the properties, the question of his filing Form 7 does not arise. Therefore, the said application is not maintainable. This fact has been well-established in the case cited supra. This Court has held when the petitioner is appointed by the competent Court as the manager of the property, he cannot claim as a tenant in respect of the same land. Further, the Court has held that no compelling evidence is produced by the applicant-tenant to overcome the statutory bar except to state that he was a tenant even before the Court of Wards took over the management of the land and therefore, he must be presumed to be a tenant even after the Court took over the management of the land in question. In the present case, as submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner was cultivating the land in question as tenant prior to the appointment as Court of wards. The said submission has got no substance and liable to be rejected at threshold. In the present case, as submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner was cultivating the land in question as tenant prior to the appointment as Court of wards. The said submission has got no substance and liable to be rejected at threshold. The entries in the relevant record of rights for the agricultural years 1970-71 to 1973-74, show the name of the petitioner in cultivator's column and mode of cultivation is one. The 'one' indicates that he is claiming as owner. Therefore, entries found earlier in the record of rights has got no relevance as held by this Court in the case cited above. In my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for grant of occupancy rights as tenant in respect of the land in question. This aspect of the matter was taken into consideration by the Tribunal and accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, I do not find any error or material illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter as enumerated above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. For the fore going reasons, writ petition is dismissed. The learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent 1 within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .