ORDER The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 26th July, 2006 passed in Appeal No. 450 of 2004 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure-T, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has assailed the correctness of the order dated 31st October, 2003 passed by the first respondent in proceedings No. UL/ND/CR.55/2003-04 granting the land in favour of respondents 4 to 7 in Survey No. 107 measuring an extent of 2 acres, situate at Nellur Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District. The petitioner has further sought for quashing the grant of land by respondents 2 and 3 as per Annexure-C, which are the lands in unauthorised occupation and possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question which was granted to respondents 4 to 7 illegally without the authority of law, whose S1. Nos. are disclosed as 73 to 76 each granted 0.30 acres of land. Further, she has sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to treat all her applications vide Annexures-D, E, F, G, Hand J and revision petition by virtue of the decision rendered in Smt. Mallavva v State of Karnataka and Others, to regularise the lands in question and to consider her case before the Committee constituted under Section 92-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the respondents 2 and 3. Further, she has sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from the suit lands in question and to declare the impugned action of respondents 1 to 3 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore as illegal wrong and against the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Smt. Mallavva and against the intention of the Legislature under Section 92-A of the Act and to set aside the order of grant made in favour of respondents 4 to 7 granting 0.30 acres situate at Channagiri Taluk. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner herein has been cultivating the land measuring an extent of 02 acres in Sy. No. 107 situate at Nellur Village, Channagiri Taluk for the past four decades. Earlier, petitioner's husband was owning the adjacent lands and has been unauthorisedly cultivating the adjacent lands towards the lands in Sy. No. 107 measuring 02 acres. No. 107 situate at Nellur Village, Channagiri Taluk for the past four decades. Earlier, petitioner's husband was owning the adjacent lands and has been unauthorisedly cultivating the adjacent lands towards the lands in Sy. No. 107 measuring 02 acres. The said land was a barren land and was non-cultivable. Petitioner, after spending huge sums of money, amounting to a sum of Rs. 03 lakhs, has developed the land and grown coconut, and other jungle wood trees and also has built a farm house. The petitioner has also dug the borewell and has covered the entire land by fencing with barbed wire. Further, the case of petitioner is that, she had filed the application for regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of the said land and that, the said application filed by petitioner is neither considered nor disposed of by respondents 1 and 2. It is her specific case that, the Competent Authority, without notifying the petitioner and without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to have her say in the matter, unilaterally, has granted the land in question in favour of respondents 4 to 7 at the rate of 30 guntas each by its order dated 31st October, 2003. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, Davanagere dated 1st October, 2003 in proceeding No. UNLD.CR.55/2003-04, petitioner has filed the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 450 of 2004. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal on 26th July;- 2006. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant material made available by the State Representative and after affording opportunity to both parties, has dismissed the appeal preferred by petitioner and confirmed the order dated 31st October, 2003. Being •aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority dated 31st October, 2003 and the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal, confirming the order passed by the Competent Authority, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 4 to 7 are served and unrepresented. The objections filed by Additional Government Advocate on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 is taken on record. 4. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 4 to 7 are served and unrepresented. The objections filed by Additional Government Advocate on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 is taken on record. 4. After perusal of the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority and the judgment passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, it is manifest on the face of both the orders that, the said authorities have not committed any error or illegality as such in passing the impugned orders. The Appellate Tribunal, after thorough evaluation of the entire original records made available by the State Representative, has recorded a finding at paragraph 7 of its judgment stating that, petitioner has neither filed the application nor registered before the Regularisation Committee seeking regularisation of the unauthcrised cultivation/occupation of land in question, which should be filed in the prescribed Form 52 (Rule 108-C) or Form 53 (Rule 108-C(2)) or Form 53 (sub-rule (1) of Rule 108-CC) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 as the case may be. Further, it is stated therein that, on perusal from the records by the Appellate Tribunal, they do not find any such application filed by petitioner before the cut off date i.e., 31st December, 1999. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal held that, petitioner has filed the application before the Regularisation Committee duly set up for the purpose after the expiry of the last date for filing the application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation as per Section 94-A of the Act and none of the applications filed by her are in prescribed format as given under the Rules. Petitioner herself has admitted that, she has filed the application dated 12th August, 2001 and the same is not in prescribed form. Subsequently also, petitioner has filed several applications vide Annexures-G to L produced along with the appeal memo before the Tribunal. Further, it is specifically observed that, the State Government has not extended the cut off date, for entertaining the subsequent applications filed by applicants. If that is the case of Petitioner, question of considering the application filed by her before the Regularisation Committee does not arise since the application filed by petitioner was much beyond the stipulated cut off date viz., 31st December, 1999 and that too, not in prescribed format. If that is the case of Petitioner, question of considering the application filed by her before the Regularisation Committee does not arise since the application filed by petitioner was much beyond the stipulated cut off date viz., 31st December, 1999 and that too, not in prescribed format. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that, the contention of the petitioner is not supported by any legal documents nor has shown any bona fide regarding her claim. Further, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Mallavva. The Appellate Tribunal after considering all the grounds urged by the petitioner and after considering the reliance placed before the said Court, has given its specific finding at paragraphs 8 and 9 of its judgment and held that, the reliance placed by learned Counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case of petitioner. It is pertinent to note here itself that, petitioner has also produced the judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Mallavva along with the present writ petition at ink page 63. After careful perusal of the said judgment, it can be seen that, this Court has considered the said case in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case of petitioner therein, i.e., Smt. Mallavva, whereunder, she had not filed the application in the prescribed form as on the cut off date, but had redressed her grievance before this Court ever since 1989 and the same was pending adjudication and that, during the pendency of the said writ petition, Section 94-A of the Act came to be incorporated in view of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Hence, in view of redressal of the grievance by Smt. Mallavva before this Court which was pending adjudication and during which period, amendment has been brought, in the peculiar fact situation of that case, this Court had directed the Competent Authority to consider the case of said petitioner-Smt. Mallavva as an exceptional case. But, the relief extended to Smt. Mallavva in that case cannot be extended to petitioner herein in the instant case for the reason that, petitioner has not made any additional grounds nor inspired the confidence of this Court to accept the submission and the grounds urged by the learned Counsel for petitioner on her behalf in the instant writ petition. But, the relief extended to Smt. Mallavva in that case cannot be extended to petitioner herein in the instant case for the reason that, petitioner has not made any additional grounds nor inspired the confidence of this Court to accept the submission and the grounds urged by the learned Counsel for petitioner on her behalf in the instant writ petition. Further, it is the stand of respondents in their statement of objections that, possession has already been taken by drawing the mahazar and thereafter, grant has also been made in favour of respondents 4 to 7. To substantiate the said submission, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 has produced the copy of the order passed by Tahsildar, Channagiri Taluk, along with the covering letter dated 10th December, 2007 wherein it is stated that, mahazar has been drawn and possession has been taken. 5. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification or good grounds to interfere in the well-considered order passed by both the authorities, as referred above. In fact, the Appellate Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, available on file, has recorded specific finding, as stated above and therefore, I decline to interfere in the well-considered orders passed by both the authorities. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, it is needless to clarify that, if petitioner disputes that, the possession taken under mahazar is not in accordance with law, it is open to her to redress her grievance before the appropriate Competent Authority, if she is so advised or if need arise.