Judgment :- K. Ramanna, J. Unsuccessful Inamdar of land has come up with this writ appeal, under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, to set aside the order dated 26-07-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.No.22692/1998 and to restore the order of Land Tribunal dated 19-5-1998. 2. The brief facts of the case are that husband of third respondent i.e., late Chotusab filed form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal in the year 1976 claiming occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.64 to an extent of 1.32 guntas of Kowdenahalli village on the basis of lease deed i.e. Guttige Kararu is said to have been executed in the year 1957 in favour of one K.G. Venkoba Rao, father of appellant herein, in respect of land in question along with two other lands i.e., Sy.Nos.65 measuring 5.3 guntas and 125/3 measuring 0.9 guntas of Kowdenahalli village, Bangalore South Taluk. The land Tribunal conducted the enquiry and by order dated 20-4-1979 rejected the claim of Chotusab. The applicant-Chotusab died on 7-2-1979 leaving behind his L.R.- third respondent herein. Therefore, third respondent being the L.R, filed W.P.No.3529/1980, before this Court questioning the legality of the order of rejection of tenancy claim made by land Tribunal. This Court had allowed the said petition and remanded the matter to land Tribunal by order dated 29-10-1980 for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal renumbered as LRF 5526/81-82 and after enquiry, it passed an order dated 31-10-1981 granting occupancy rights in favors of the third respondent. Being aggrieved, the appellant’s father filed W.P.No.30915/1981 before this Court. By order dated 13-3-1985, this Court allowed the said petition and again remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the ground that enquiry contemplated under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, was not held by the Land Tribunal. Thereafter, the matter was again renumbered as LRF Nos.2813/76 & 3928/71. The land Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties and after hearing the arguments rejected the claim of the third respondent herein by order dated 19-5-1998. Being aggrieved, third respondent filed W.P.No.22692/1998 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 26-7-2004 allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Being aggrieved, third respondent filed W.P.No.22692/1998 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 26-7-2004 allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal. This court allowed writ petition and quashed the order dated 19-5-1998 and allowed form No.7 filed by husband of third respondent and the Tribunal was directed to register the third respondent and other legal heirs of deceased Chotusab as occupants of the land in question and was directed to issue occupancy certificates to them and effect necessary entries in RTC records within a period of three months. Assailing the said order of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed by the appellant. 3. We have heard the arguments of learned senior counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the records. 4. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the appellant that late Chotusab filed form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land Sy.No.64 of Kowdanahalli village to the extent of 1 acre 32 guntas on 18-5-1976. But late Chotusab was assigned Sy.No.65 measuring 5.32 guntas as per Ex.P-5 and not Sy.No.64 and the land Sy.No.64 was assigned to one Ameersab, brother-in-law of Chotusab. Sy.nos.64 and 65 together were surrendered by tenants to the land lord on 14-3-1967 before the Court of Munsiff, Bangalore. This goes to show that occupancy rights granted in favour of respondent-3-wife of Chotusab in respect of land bearing Sy.No.64 was totally incorrect since Chotusab and Ameersab who had voluntarily applied to the Munsiff Court, Bangalore and after receiving the notice, filed objections in form No.1 as contemplated under the rules prevailing. Since aforesaid lands are village offices inam land i.e., Shanbhog/patwari, with effect from 1-2-1963, Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act came into force. Therefore, the question of granting occupancy right in favors of present respondent-3 in respect of Sy.No.64 is totally incorrect and illegal. It is argued that as on the date of 1-3-1974, land in question was not a tenanted land and deceased Chotusab and Ameersab surrendered the lands and tenancy itself came to an end much prior to 1-3-1974 and either the respondent No.3 or her husband who are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the lands as tenants. It is argued that as on the date of 1-3-1974, land in question was not a tenanted land and deceased Chotusab and Ameersab surrendered the lands and tenancy itself came to an end much prior to 1-3-1974 and either the respondent No.3 or her husband who are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the lands as tenants. It is further argued that lands in question was regranted by the Deputy Commissioner in favors of the appellant and this fact has not been disputed. It is further argued that since late Chotusab was working in ITI as a workman and therefore deceased Chotusab was not personally cultivating the lands and once he had surrendered the lands, he would not be entitled to seek any occupancy right and he will not get any right also. Merely because landlord has not filed any objection to the surrendering application filed by Chotusab and Ameersab, it cannot be said that there was valid surrender. The evidence placed on record by the appellant and Sri Lakshman Rao clearly indicates that after surrendering, they were cultivating the lands as tenant. It is further argued that since appellant had sold the land in Sy.No.65 in the year 1967 learned Single Judge of this Court has not considered this aspect of the matter and come to a wrong conclusion in noting that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands. The application filed by the tenants before the Munsiff was valid. According to learned Single Judge contents of Ex.R-2 and the order passed thereon cannot be taken into consideration and therefore judgment under challenge suffers from legal infirmities. 5. It is further argued that the decision in Puttegowda’s case does not arise for consideration. The theory in the case of Manekshaw’s case is applicable to the facts on hand. The tenancy was terminated and the question of entertaining the form No.7 filed by Chotusab did not arise at all. It is further argued that between 1967 to 1976 no action was taken by the parties. The surrender of lands was made on 14-3-1967 and said surrender was voluntary and bonafide and it has to established that as on 1-3-1971 a person filing form No.7 has to prove that he was in lawful possession of the lands. No documents were produced to show that tenants were in occupation of the land as on the date of 1-3-1974. No documents were produced to show that tenants were in occupation of the land as on the date of 1-3-1974. Therefore, the learned Single Judge could not have distinguished the factual findings. It was further argued that where the rights of the parties have changed as the circumstances have changed, the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the petition as per the impugned order. 6. In support of the contentions, he relied on the following decisions: In the case of H.S Srinivasa Raghavachar & Others ( 1987(2) SCC 692 ), it is held thus: “Tenancy and land laws-Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Section 44(1) (as amended by Karnataka land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1 of 1974 – held, intra vires Article 39(b) & (c) and not destructive of basic structure of the Constitution – Amendment Act taking away landlord’s right to resume possession of tenanted land even where he bonafide required the land for personal cultivation and having no other principal source of income for his own maintenance valid – Constitution of India, Article 39(b) & (c). In the case of Puttegowda vs State of Karnataka & Others ( AIR 1970 SC 1269 ) Supreme Court held thus: “Where even after the order permitting surrender (as it stood in 1969) the tenant was in possession, he must be held to have continued to be a tenant was in possession, he must be held to have continued to be a tenant and was entitled to grant of occupancy right.” In Siddamma vs State of Karnataka ( 1979(1) Kar.L.J 233 ), this Court held thus: “An order of the Tribunal (of 22-12-1969) accepting the surrender by the tenant and permitting the landlord to enter upon the land surrendered had the effect of putting the tenancy to an end, and thereby the relationship of landlord and tenant also came to an end. If in spite of the order under Section 25, the tenant remained in possession, his possession will not be as a tenant.” In the case of Maneksha Ardeshir Irani & Another vs Manekji Edulji Mistr ( AIR 1974 SC 2123 ), the Supreme Court held thus: “If a lessee remains in possession after determination of the term, he is under the common law a tenant on sufferance. The expression ‘holding over’ is used in the sense of retaining possession. The expression ‘holding over’ is used in the sense of retaining possession. If a tenant after determination of the lease is in possession without the consent of the landlord, he is a tenant by sufferance. He is not entitled to the protection under Section 4-b. It is only where a tenant will continue in possession with the consent of the landlord that he can be called a tenant holding over or a tenant at will. Tenancy is a matter of privity of parties. Where the landlord never gave consent to hold over, the tenant is only a trespasser.” 7. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for 3rd respondent argued that husband of third respondent – Chotusab died on 7.2.1979 and he was cultivating the lands and this fact has not been disputed by the appellant. Therfore During the pendency of form No.7, Chotusab and Ameersab applied for surrendering the lands and they were in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. After the death of Chotusab, wife of Chotusab and other legal heirs filed form No.7 which came to be rejected and he challenged the said rejection before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the said order of rejection with cogent reasons. It is argued that no application was made under Section 41(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It was argued that there was no enquiry under Section 2 & 25 of the Act. Moreover, the appellant has not filed any objection to the show cause notice regarding the surrender of lands. The application said to have been filed by the tenants, there was no enquiry. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. He further prayed that the order under challenge is a well reasoned order and does not require any interference and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 8. The application said to have been filed by the tenants, there was no enquiry. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. He further prayed that the order under challenge is a well reasoned order and does not require any interference and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 8. In support of the contentions, he relied on the following decisions: In the case of Ramachandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by LRs vs Govind Joti Chavare & Others ( AIR 1975 SC 915 ), Supreme Court held thus: “Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (67 of 1948) (as amended in 1952) – S.5 – (3)(b) – Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Rules (1956), Rule 2-A – Surrender by tenant – Requirements – Provisions are mandatory and not directory – Non-compliance – Effect – Verification – Non-recording of satisfaction by authority – Surrender vitiated.” In the case of State of Karnataka vs Uppegouda & Others (1997)3 SCC 593 ) “Tenancy and Land Laws – Karnataka Tenancy Act, 1952) – S.5 - Rights of tenant – Tenant continuing in possession of the land from 1950 to 1965 – Meanwhile the 1961 Act coming into force – Landholder asserting that tenant had surrendered his interest and in support showing entries in revenue records – But no proof of eviction on statutory grounds existing – held, tenancy was not terminable – Surrender of tenancy under proviso to S.5 should be proved strictly and not merely on the basis of entries in revenue records – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Mutation entries – Value of entries in revenue records.” In the case of Siddappa (Dead) By L.Rs & Others vs State of Karnataka & Others ( AIR 2000 SC 1676 ) Supreme Court held thus: “Karnataka Land Reforms Act – S.44 – Conferment of occupancy rights – Tenant in possession on relevant date despite resumption order passed in favour of landlord – entire land in his possession gets vested in State Government by virtue of S.44 – tenant cannot refused occupancy rights merely because in proceedings for resumption initiated by landlord, tenant has agreed to forgo his claim to the extent of 50% of the land in his occupation.” In the case of Venkataramanappa vs B.N Narasimhachar (ILR 2000 Kar 2280) this Court has held thus: “Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No.10 of 1962) – Sections 25, 48A & 121A – Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the tenant on the ground that the Application for resumption filed by the landlord had been allowed by the District Judge by his Order dated 4-2-1971 – In a revision petition filed by the tenant it was filed by the tenant it was held there was no proper surrender and the possession of the land had continued with the tenant – Hence Court interfered with the concurrent findings under Section 121-A.” 9. However, in our view, it is not necessary to independently deal with the judgments, on which reliance has been placed by both sides as question of law stands well settled on these disputes. 10. Having heard the counsel for both parties and after perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the respective parties, the only point that arises for consideration is “whether the order under challenge passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court directing the Land Tribunal to register the names of third respondent and other legal heirs of deceased Chotusab as occupants of the land in question under Section 45 of KLR Act and to issue occupancy certificate to them and effect necessary entries in the RTC records is incorrect and illegal? 11. It is an undisputed fact that father of the appellant K.G. Venkoba Rao was a patwari of kowdenahalli village. The husband of third respondent namely, deceased Chotusab was a tenant under late K.G. Venkoba Rao. It is also an admitted fact that land in Sy.No.102 of Kowdenahally village measures 7 acres 20 guntas. It is also an admitted fact that in the year 1957 the said land was given to Chotusab and resurvey number was given to Chotusab and consequently Sy.No.102 was changed to Sy.No.64 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas, Sy.No.65 measuring 5 acres 33 guntas and Sy.No.125/3 measuring 9 guntas. 12. The records indicate that Ameersab is none other than brother-in-law of deceased Chotusab. As the deceased Chotusab was working in ITI and could not cultivate the lands, made an application before the Munsiff Court for surrendering the lands. The Munsiff court granted permission to surrender the lands. The contention of the appellant is that they have voluntarily surrendered the lands before the competent authority. Of course, the names of Chotusab and Ameersab were entered in the year 1967 against cultivators column. In respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos.64 & 65, even though the name of father of appellant appeared in the cultivators column, but the receipts produced by respondent-3 indicates that the lease amount was collected by Chotusab in the form of a crop. After surrendering of lands by Chotusab, the lands were regranted to them in the year 1967 and possession was taken by them. After surrendering of lands by Chotusab, the lands were regranted to them in the year 1967 and possession was taken by them. Therefore, learned Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that Chotusab was cultivating the lands and it was not a voluntary surrender of land. 13. The records even indicate that mahazar was drawn without the signature of tenants who were said to have handed over possession to the appellant and therefore the learned Single Judge was right in holding that there was no delivery of possession of land in question by the erstwhile Land Tribunal in favors of the appellant. 14. Therefore, there is no need to remand the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the case. As it is, the legal questions that were required to be examined, are answered by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge, that since the parties are fighting the litigation for more than 28 to 30 years and have approached this Court for the third time, to put an end to the litigation, the question of remanding the case does not arise. 15. The evidence placed on record indicates that even though husband of respondent-3 was in possession of the lands right from 1957 till today, their names have not been entered for the relevant years i.e. 1973-74. The village Accountant appointed was none other than a relative of the landlord, thus deliberately and intentionally he had not entered the names of Chotusab and Ameersab against the cultivators column. Therefore, considering the rent receipts produced before the land Tribunal by the respondent-3, it is clear that they were in possession of the lands in question. 16. After having critically gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.3 herein, we are of the considered opinion that we would also subscribe to the same reasonings as no perversity or illegality could be pointed out to us in the same. 17. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in setting aside the orders of the Land Tribunal and in our view, the said order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.