Judgment :- 1. This appeal arising out of the order dated 11.9.2003 passed in W.P.No.43770/2002 [LR] by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the appellant has assailed the legality and correctness of the order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the first respondent-Land Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of this case are as under:- Deceased Late Bandagisab has filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights, in respect of the land baring Sy.No. 179 measuring 7 acres 7 guntas situated at Kodekal Village, Shorapur Taluk, known as “Gaddi Hola” for the relevant agricultural year 197071 to 1974-75. In view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, he has filed Form No.7 in the prescribed form seeking registration of occupancy rights. The said application filed by the deceased Late Bandagisab, represented by respondents No.2(a) & 2(b) has come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal in proceedings No.LRT:07/86/80/75-76 and LRY:07/86/75-76. The occupancy rights have been registered in favour of the deceased Late Bandagisab by its order dated 5.9.1980 by the Land Tribunal, Surpur. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the owner late Sangappa was filed W.P.No.18265/1980. The said writ petition filed by the erstwhile owner of the land in question was allowed and the matter remitted back to the Tribunal for re-consideration by order dated 17.7.1981 by the learned Single Judge of this Court After remand, the matter was took up for consideration by the Land Tribunal by its order dated 31.12.1981. The order has been passed and occupancy rights have been registered in favour of deceased Late Bandagisab. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 31.12.1984 passed by the Land Tribunal, the appellant herein has filed W.P.No.25246/1999, the order passed by the Land Tribunal is set aside and re considered on the sole ground that, the appellant claims that, he has purchased the land from the erstwhile owner deceased Sangappa on 30.8.1980. The said matter was allowed and order passed by the Land Tribunal is set aside and the matter remitted back to the Land Tribunal for re-consideration afresh after affording opportunity to all the parties. After remand, the Tribunal took up the matter for consideration after affording the opportunity of hearing to all the parties. After going through the records, the Chairman of first respondent-land Tribunal has opined that Late Bandagisab has failed to establish that he was cultivating the land in question as on 1.3.1974. After remand, the Tribunal took up the matter for consideration after affording the opportunity of hearing to all the parties. After going through the records, the Chairman of first respondent-land Tribunal has opined that Late Bandagisab has failed to establish that he was cultivating the land in question as on 1.3.1974. Hence, he was not entitled for occupancy rights, on the sole ground that no presumption could be attached to the entries made in the record of rights as those entries are not preceded by the Mutation entry as Mutation entry is a condition precedent to enter the name of the persons in the record of rights for the relevant year 1970-71 to 1974-75, but whereas the majority members of the Land Tribunal after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and relevant material in the file and documentary evidence and relevant material in the file and after following the due procedure envisaged under Rule 17(8) & 17(9) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, recorded a finding of fact, holding that, Bandagisab was cultivating the said land as tenant and he is entitled for registration of occupancy rights. Being not satisfied with the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 29.10.2002, registering occupancy rights in favour of the deceased Bandagisab, represented by R2(a) & R2(b) herein filed W.P. No. 43770/2002 (LR). The said writ petition has come up for consideration on 11.9.2003. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the sides, after re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on the file, has dismissed the writ petition, confirming the occupancy rights registered in favour of the tenant, after considering all the contentions taken by the appellant through his Counsel. Being aggrieved by the learned Single Judge order impugned, the appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset is that, the Tribunal has committed a grave error and proceeded to conclude the proceedings registering occupancy rights in favour of the deceased Bandagisab, claiming to be the tenant on the majority view recorded by the members of the Tribunal. Whereas, Chairman of the Tribunal has expressed his views and opined that the deceased Bandagisab cultivating the land only for a period of four years, but the entry found in the record of rights are not certified. Whereas, Chairman of the Tribunal has expressed his views and opined that the deceased Bandagisab cultivating the land only for a period of four years, but the entry found in the record of rights are not certified. Further, he seeks to point out and submitted that, the deceased Bandagisab has examined only one witness-Yamanappa. In the evidence, he is not consistent. This aspect of the matter has been rightly considered by the Chairman and opined that the tenant is not entitled for registration of occupancy rights nor the land in question is vested with the Government as on 1.3.1974. Further, he placed reliance on the Judgments of this Court:- .(1) In the case of M.K. Ramanna v. State of Karnataka & Others reported in 1988(3) Kar. L.J. 450; .(2) In the case of Vishwa Vijay Bharti v. Fakhurl Hassan and others; reported in (1976)3 Supreme Court Cases 642; & .(3) In the case of Kasturchand and Another v. Harbilash and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 3037 . contending that in view of the well settled law of the land the burden of proving, as on 1.3.1974 he is the person lawfully cultivating the land as a tenant, is on the tenant. The applicant and he alone must discharge that burden. Mere presumption arising out of the entries made in the pahani or in the record of rights cannot hold to be the conclusive evidence of the tenant. There is nothing to show that, this correction was made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the subsequent entry will be of no consequence and it confers no benefit. These Judgments referred has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, he submitted that, the order impugned, passed by the Land Tribunal, Surpur and the order assed by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside, declaring that, the appellant is the absolute owner of the land in question. 4. These Judgments referred has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, he submitted that, the order impugned, passed by the Land Tribunal, Surpur and the order assed by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside, declaring that, the appellant is the absolute owner of the land in question. 4. As against this, learned AGA appearing for the first respondent No.2(a) & 2(b), interalia contended and substantiated the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal and the order passed by the learned single Judge, both the orders have been passed after critical evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, due consideration of the relevant material available on the file and the Land Tribunal in majority view recorded a finding of fact holding that, the land in question is a tenanted land and vested with the Government as on 1.3.1974 and the entries found in RORs for the agricultural years 1970-71 to 1974-75. Further, he points out and taken us through the evidence given by the deceased Late Sangappa, the erstwhile landlord-owner of the land in question contending that, Late Bandagisab cultivated the land for a period of two years and further he stated that, about 5 to 6 years, he has left the cultivation of land, which has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, he was cultivating the land as on 1.3.1974. This evidence on record has been rightly accepted and registered the occupancy rights. The well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference by this Court, the appellant has made out any good ground to grant the relief sought for in the instant appeal, hence, it is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 5. After careful consideration/submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence and after microscopic evaluation of the records, what emerges is that, infact the deceased Late Bandagisab has filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights dated 20.11.1975 claiming that, he is cultivating the said land as a tenant for the relevant period from 1970-71 and 1974-75 to establish his evidence before the Tribunal and in consonance with the entries found in the RORs for the years 1970-71 to 1974-75. This fact is not disputed by the appellant Mr.M.B. Naragund that, the entries found in RORs has got no presumptive value under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act and the entry does not support the certification of mutation entry from the competent authority as envisaged under the relevant provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is significant to note that, the entry found in column No.12(2) of RORs establish beyond reasonable doubt that in column No.12 name of Late Bandagisab recorded for the agricultural years 1970-71 to 1974-75. Further, it is pertinent to note here itself that, the mode of cultivation is shown as “4”. – “tenant”. This indicates that, he as cultivating the land as a tenant on the relevant day i.e., as on 1.3.1974. This fact has been rightly considered and appreciated and assessed by the majority members of the Land Tribunal and recorded a finding of fact holding that, the land in question was vested with the Government as on 1.3.1974. Hence, tenant is entitled for registration of occupancy rights. The said reasoning given holding that, the deceased tenant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, he is cultivating the said land as a tenant has been rightly considered strictly as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and registered the occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal also confirms the order of the learned Single Judge strictly in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the Rules and well founded, interference by this Court does not call for. 6. Further, during the course of the submissions, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 2(a) & 2(b) submitted that as a matter of fact, as on date, respondents 2 (a) & 2(b) are cultivating the said land. He placed reliance to the entry found in the RORs for the agricultural years 2009-10, out of 7 acres 7 guntas of land, 10 guntas is a kharab land and 6 acres 37 guntas, out of which 2.89 is the wet cultivatable land and further the entry found in the Water Rate Demand and Collection pass Book issued at free of cost by the Agricultural Department, Karnataka State. 7. Further, as per the Krushi pass book [agricultural pass book], there is an entry found in the name of the deceased Bandagisab bearing Book No.303401. The aid land stood in the name of deceased Bandagisab. 7. Further, as per the Krushi pass book [agricultural pass book], there is an entry found in the name of the deceased Bandagisab bearing Book No.303401. The aid land stood in the name of deceased Bandagisab. Thereafter, after the death of deceased Badagisab, name of respondent 2(a) is shown in the agricultural pass book bearing No.316791 issued by the Revenue Department, Gulbarga (1)]. What emerges is that, the deceased Bandagisab was cultivating the land after his successors, respondents No.2(a) & 2(b) succeeded, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Further, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for R2(a) & R2(b) that, as per Section 112, the Tribunal has no power to enquire the genuineness of the entry in the record of rights as per the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act. He also placed the reliance on the Judgment of this Court reported in 1978(1) Kar.L.J. 269 in the case of Sannarangappa v. Land Tribunal, Pavagada & Another, wherein, it has been held that, as per Section 48A(4)-enquiry-record of rights-Entries in-Power of Tribunal as to-Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Sections 127 to 136 and Rule 43, held that, the Tribunal has to verify what has been submitted by the applicant for registration of occupancy rights in form No.7 in the manner deemed just by it. Such verification necessarily includes looking into the pahani columns of the record of rights and drawing the presumption in law as prescribed by Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964. Therefore, Section 112, Land Reforms Act enumerates the powers to be exercised by the Land Tribunal and the power to hold that, a particular entry in the record of rights was genuine or not, is not enumerated in it. A machinery is set up by the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to go into such questions in regard to entries in mutation register and consequently in regard to entries in the record of rights. As against this, the Land Reforms Tribunal cannot assume power to go into these questions. If it does so, the right of appeal that is available to the aggrieved party by virtue of Land Revenue Act, 1964, would be lost. As against this, the Land Reforms Tribunal cannot assume power to go into these questions. If it does so, the right of appeal that is available to the aggrieved party by virtue of Land Revenue Act, 1964, would be lost. It is significant to note that, in the case on hand, it is not the case of the appellant claiming to be the purchaser of the lands in question prior to 1.3.1974. In fact, he purchased the land in the year 1980. The matter has been considered by the Land Tribunal on consideration of the application-Form No.7 filed by the tenant for registration of occupancy rights showing the name of erstwhile owner of the land in question in the relevant column in Form No.7. The appellant herein has not chosen to question the entries recorded in the RORs for the relevant period i.e., 1970-71 to 1974-75. Therefore, the contention taken by the Counsel appearing for the appellant has no substance nor got any assistance. The judgment relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has been rightly considered by the learned Single Judge and the same has been answered in negative holding that, those Judgments cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Therefore, on this count also, the writ appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 8. The writ appeal filed by the appellant is also liable to be dismissed on the other ground for the reason that, the appellant purchased the land in question on 30.8.1980, which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, the deceased Bandagisab has filed his Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights dated 20.11.1975 and first time occupancy rights has been registered in the name of the deceased Bandagisab on 5.9.1980 and thereafter on 31.12.1981 and also in the year 1933, the said matter has come up before the Land Tribunal. Therefore being a subsequent purchaser, he cannot have any right to question the tenancy rights, registration of occupancy rights vests in favour of R-2(a) & 2(b). 9. The Land Tribunal, after critical evaluation of oral and documentary evidence has registered the occupancy rights strictly in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the Rules. Therefore being a subsequent purchaser, he cannot have any right to question the tenancy rights, registration of occupancy rights vests in favour of R-2(a) & 2(b). 9. The Land Tribunal, after critical evaluation of oral and documentary evidence has registered the occupancy rights strictly in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the Rules. Appellant knowing fully well that, the matter has been pending before the Land Tribunal, has chosen to purchase the land. Hence, the erstwhile owner has got no title of the tenanted land to sell the same in favour of the appellant which has been vested with the Government as on 1.3.1974. Therefore, alleged purchase made by the appellant for the land in question, is null and void in the eye of law. 10. Taking all these relevant facts into consideration, at any stretch of imagination, we cannot interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge and also registered the occupancy rights, after conducting thorough enquiry, recording a finding of fact registering occupancy rights in favour of deceased Bandagisab, represented by Respondent No.2(a) & 2(b). Taking all these relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the writ appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.