ORDER Ramesh, J. Petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Land Tribunal, Theertahalli dated 26.12.2002. According to the petitioners who are the legal representatives of the original applicant namely Giriyappa Gowda, land in Sy.No.44/6 measuring 4.30 acres of Kadegadde Village was owned by one D N Subba Rao, Kolluranna Gowda and Rudraiah as joint owners. Earlier, an application was filed by them on 23.8.1974 in respect of some other properties regarding which the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights after enquiry by its order dated 5.7.1977 in respect of Sy.No. 74 and other survey numbers. Subsequently, after the order of the Land Tribunal, in respect of different survey number the petitioner filed Form 7 which is dated 19.5.1979 which came to be rejected. Hence this petition. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, counsel representing the respondents and the Government Pleader. According to the petitioners’ counsel, in so far as items in second Form 7 filed by them, it was not considered by the Land Tribunal earlier and the second Form 7 filed was well within time and could have been adjudicated by the Land Tribunal. Instead, stating that it is a second such application being filed, it has rejected the application which is not proper. Accordingly, petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Tribunal and to direct the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in respect of the said survey number also. Per contra, counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Paramesh war Thimmayya Hegde & Ors vs Venkatraman Manjappa Hegde & Ors wherein this Court held that second application is not maintainable. Government Pleader submitted that as per Rule 19 of the Land Reforms Rules, it is for the applicant to make a mention of all such tenanted lands at a stretch and to seek for adjudication. Already a claim is made by the applicant in respect of some of the properties which has been adjudicated and once again the petitioners are seeking for one more property on the ground that it had been left of in the first application firm which is not maintainable. 3. Already a claim is made by the applicant in respect of some of the properties which has been adjudicated and once again the petitioners are seeking for one more property on the ground that it had been left of in the first application firm which is not maintainable. 3. In the instant case, it is seen the first application is filed in respect of several properties which has been considered and the Land Tribunal by order dated 27.12.1979 granted occupancy rights but this is second such application and although according to the petitioner it is not mentioned in the first application filed and also it is against different person and is also filed well within time of the appointed dated Le., 30.6.1979, that is to say the second application is filed on 9.5.1979, that application ought to have been considered by the Land Tribunal and he ought to have granted occupancy rights. 4. In so far as maintainability of the second application in Form 7 is concerned, this Court in the decision noted supra has, referring to Giriyappa’s case reported in 2000 (1) KCCR 551 and another decision in WP 31/1989 decided on 18.7.1989 (Naikara Gadirappa Vs State of Karnataka), has held that every applicant should state in the said the application – Form 7 the particulars of any other land held by him including the land held by any other member of his family, either as owner or tenant. Rule 19 also envisages that applicant shall furnish particulars of all the lands held under each separate tenancy in one or more than one taluk in which the applicant claims to be registered as an occupant. The requirement that the application must be exhaustive of all the lands claimed by the applicant obviously is based on certain purpose and preventing piece meal applications so that there may be consolidated enquiry and hearing by the Tribunal competent to decide a particular application and such rule is based on order II Rule 2, CPC. The above ratio enables the Tribunal to consider at a stretch all the lands held by the applicant or any of the family members and whether such lands are tenanted lands or not and to see that the applications so filed contain all the particulars of different tenanted lands. The above ratio enables the Tribunal to consider at a stretch all the lands held by the applicant or any of the family members and whether such lands are tenanted lands or not and to see that the applications so filed contain all the particulars of different tenanted lands. This Court in the above noted decision has held that only one application is maintainable and not the second application. Of course the petitioner, could have sought of an amendment of the original application itself during pendency of the proceedings before the land Tribunal in stead of filing a second application after the first application was considered and disposed of. The very purport of Rule 19 is to file such application in Form 7 making a mention of all such properties at a stretch. However, the exception provided as per judicial dictum is that, the amendment application should be filed well within the appointed date i.e., 30.6.1979 provided there is a proceeding pending before the Tribunal regarding such application being filed and as is clear, second or subsequent applications are not maintainable. I do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal in rejecting such send application although it is in respect of different survey number and a different land downer. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Land Tribunal, Theertahalli does not call for any interference. Petition is dismissed.