Judgment : 1. There is delay of 110 days in filing the appeal Seeking condonation, Misc. W. No. 405 of 2009 has been filed. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel on merits of the appeal. Since we find that, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected, it is unnecessary to order notice on Misc. W, No. 405 of 2009 to respondents, Since, appeal itself being liable to be rejected as devoid of merit, it is unnecessary to consider and allow. W. No. 405 of 2009 3. Appellant-k Bangarappa, had filed the writ petition for quashing an order dated 30-1-2003 (Annexure-D) passed by the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Soraba, granting occupancy rights to respondent 3, Said person claims to be have interest in the property, by virtue of agreement of sale dated 2-3-1969 (Annexure-A) between himself and the respondent 4. He had opposed the claim for grant of occupancy rights. Land Tribunal after holding an enquiry, had conferred occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent, which was questioned in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, after noticing the fact that, the writ petitioner is only an agreement holder and has no locus standi to maintain the petition. However, it has been clarified that, if there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the property, he is at liberty to get the land surveyed and identified and protect his interest. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred. 4. Sri E. Thirthappa, learned Counsel appearing for the L.Rs of appellant, contended that, the order passed by 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, impugned in the writ petition is arbitrary and illegal and that, the learned Single judge has not considered the case of the writ petitioner in proper perspective and hence, interference is called for Learned Counsel further contended that, the property in respect of which occupancy rights was granted, was not in possession of 3rd respondent and has not vested in the State, since the property being not a tenanted property as on 1-3-1974 and hence occupancy rights could not have been granted by the Land Tribunal. 5. The point for consideration is, whether the writ petition has locus standi to question the order as at Annexure-D? 6. The fact remains that, writ petitioner/appellant-K Bangarappa, is not the, owner of the property in question. 5. The point for consideration is, whether the writ petition has locus standi to question the order as at Annexure-D? 6. The fact remains that, writ petitioner/appellant-K Bangarappa, is not the, owner of the property in question. He claims right to the property, by virtue of an agreement of sale dated 2-3-1969 (Annexure-A) alleged to have been executed by 4th respondent. 4th respondent was shown as the landlord before the Land Tribunal. Matter was enquired into and the Tribunal having found that, the property had been tenanted prior to 1-3-1974 an has vested in State on account of the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, has passed the order(Annexure-D) conferring occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent 4th respondent, who according to appellant is the owner of the property, has not challenged the said order. Appellant being only an agreement holder, has no locus standi to question the impugned order (ANNEXURE-D) Mere agreement of sale creates no legal interest or right in the property which is the subject-matter of agreement. No propriety title in the property has passed on to the appellant and hence he has no right, to oppose/question the claim of the tenant-3rd respondent. His right, if any, is only to seek enforcement of the alleged agreement dated 2-3-1969 against 4th respondent, had not the land vested in the State and the occupancy rights were not granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. In the said view of the matter, learned Single Judge is justified in holding that, writ petitioner has no locus standi to question the impugned order in the writ petition. 7. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Writ petition has rightly been dismissed for want of locus standi/maintainability. Writ appeal stands dismissed. Misc. W. No. 406 of 2009 for stay, does not survive for consideration, in view of the dismissal of writ appeal itself. Ordered accordingly.