Judgment 1. The name of Sri Naveed Ahmed, learned counsel be shown for respondent No.2 in place of L. Mallesh. 2. Petitioners herein are the purchasers of portion of the property in Sy.No.221 measuring 39 guntas of Doddakonte village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk by way of sites, after conversion of the said land by their erstwhile landlord one M Gujjarappa. However, the Land Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 7.2.2006 in LRF 673/74-75, has granted occupancy rights in favour of 2nd respondent one M Ramu accepting him as tenant in respect of the land in question. Hence, these petitions. 3. The Land Tribunal has opined that Form No.7 has been filed by the applicant in the year 1975 and on verification, it is found that from 1966 to 1975-76, the applicant was in possession of the land in question as a tenant and thereafter, the tenancy has been terminated. Further, also on the basis of the admission on the part of the original landlord Gujjarappa that in a portion of the property the applicant was residing, the Land Tribunal has come to the conclusion to grant occupancy rights in favour of the applicant. 4. Heard. 5. The contention of the petitioners’ counsel is that, petitioners are the purchasers of converted land in Sy.No.221 of Doddagunte village from its erstwhile vendor. In the year 1971 itself the said land was assessed to municipal taxes. As per Sections 112 and 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, once the land has been assessed by the Corporation or Municipality, it no more retains the character of an agricultural land. The Tribunal having failed to take note of the said fact, only based on some entries in the revenue records, has proceeded to grant occupancy rights in favour of the applicant, which is erroneous. 6. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted that the land in question has remained as an agricultural land. 7. By virtue of the provisions of Sections 112 and 114 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, when the land in question comes within the city limits and khata is made and the land is assessed to taxes, it does not retain the character of agricultural land. 7. By virtue of the provisions of Sections 112 and 114 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, when the land in question comes within the city limits and khata is made and the land is assessed to taxes, it does not retain the character of agricultural land. Without visualizing and verifying these aspects, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of the applicant stating that he is a tenant, without identifying his right, which appears to be without justification. If there is an admission on the part of M. Gujjarappa, the erstwhile landlord that the said applicant was residing in a portion of the property, it does not enure to the benefit of the applicant. In the circumstances, petitions are allowed and the impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 7.2.2006 is quashed. 13-4-2012 ORDERON “for being spoken to” These matters were allowed on 12.4.2012 and the impugned order of the Land Tribunal was quashed. At the request of learned counsel for 2nd respondent in W.P.No.99/2007 to hear the matter through Senior Counsel, these matters are listed “for being spoken to”. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, who raised the following points for consideration:- (i) There is no conversion order; (ii) Conversion must be under Section 93 of Mysore Land Revenue Code; (iii) Land remains to be agricultural land even if it is not used for agricultural purposes; (iv) Power of Attorney is not given authorising to sell the property; (v) Question of tenancy has to be decided by the Land Tribunal and not by this Court. With regard to nature of land, the Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the decision in the case of State of Karnataka and others v Shajakara Textiles Mills Ltd., ( AIR 1995 SC 234 : (1995) 1 SCC 295 ).With reference to the last points raised, the learned Counsel requested to remand the matter to the Land Tribunal to decide the question of tenancy. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and other respondents have submitted that 2nd respondent has no locus standi to contest the matter as the property has been sold illegal immediately after grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal. 4. So far as conversion of land is concerned, conversion order is produced in one of the writ petitions way back in the year 1946, i.e., on 15-4-1946 itself. 4. So far as conversion of land is concerned, conversion order is produced in one of the writ petitions way back in the year 1946, i.e., on 15-4-1946 itself. Even in the sale deed executed by the Power of Attorney Holder of 2nd respondent, the land is sold as nonagricultural land. In the light of these documents, the argument that there is no conversion of the land, does not hold water. Such a submission is contrary to the documents on record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5071 of 2006 invited the attention of this Court to the Power of Attorney wherein the executant has authorised the holder even to sell the property. Hence, the argument that the GPA holder was not authorised to sell the property is baseless and cannot he accepted. 6. So far as the nature of the land is concerned, in view of the conversion order, the land has lost its character as an agricultural land. The land is within the Corporation limits and in the heart of Bangalore City, Katha in the name of the owner from 1965 and entry of names of purchasers and taxes paid by then to the Corporation all clearly dispel the contention advanced that the land remains as agricultural land. 7. Despite placing all these materials before the Land Tribunal, without considering the same and without application of mind, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights. The order of Land Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and capricious. Since the land in question is not agricultural land, the same should not have been the subject matter of tenancy and prima facie the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the tenancy claim. 8. Since the land is sold, the 2nd respondent has no right, title and interest in the property and therefore, the matter cannot be remanded at his behest. Even otherwise also, since it is held that land is not agricultural land and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain tenancy claim, question of remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal does not arise. That apart, it is high time to put an end to the litigation at this juncture itself. 9. The order allowing the writ petitions and quashing the impugned order of the Land Tribunal is perfectly justified and no further consideration is required in these matters. All contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel stands rejected.