Judgment Petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.990/2005 on 31.12.2011 - Annexure A. According to the petitioners, mulgeni chit was registered in favour of the petitioner's father and mother in the year 1963 and also there appears to be mutation extract with regard to proof of cultivable tenancy as on 1.3.1974, during 1988-89. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing Form 7A filed by the petitioner is during 2005 and subsequently, appeal has been preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal, order of the Assistant Commissioner has been reversed. As against the said order, this petition is filed. Heard the counsel representing the parties. According to the petitioners, they are purchasers of mulgeni rights and they were cultivating the schedule land as per annexures D and E. On commencement of the Amendment Act of 1997, Form 7A is filed.. Rightly, the 2nd respondent/Assistant Commissioner and the Competent Authority has granted occupancy rights which the Appellate Tribunal without appreciating the facts, has dismissed the claim which is illegal. Counsel for the respondent contended, property belongs to the respondent and petitioners are only purchasers of the property from the erstwhile Archak and 3rd respondent directly. There is no right created to the vendor of the petitioners much less the petitioners cannot be deemed tenant as per S.4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and definition of S.45 of the Act also does not attract. The order of the Appellate Tribunal reversing the finding of the Assistant Commissioner granting occupancy rights is just and proper and cannot be called in question. Property in Sy.No.70/1A2 measuring 28 cents situate at Udyavara village is said to be a temple land. The property should have been the subject matter of tenancy if the Archak had filed the application as a mulgeni right holder. Way back in the year 1963 itself, without there being any authority of the respondent Temple, property is sold by the Archak of the temple behind the back of the respondent. As such, there is breach of trust at the hands of the vendor of the petitioner. It is difficult to say that as on 1.3.1974 property has vested with the Government or it continues as deemed tenancy and petitioner cannot be considered as a deemed tenant in the context. As such, there is breach of trust at the hands of the vendor of the petitioner. It is difficult to say that as on 1.3.1974 property has vested with the Government or it continues as deemed tenancy and petitioner cannot be considered as a deemed tenant in the context. Property sold by the Archak appears to be a fraudulent act and thereafter, there is nothing on record to show that there was payment of gutta or anything else by the vendor of the petitioners up to 1.3.1974. There appears to be no such relation continued between the petitioners and the respondent. In that view of the matter, grant of occupancy rights on the application filed by petitioners appears to be erroneous. In a reasoned order, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of grant. Further, in the decision in the case of Racha Naika Vs State of Karnataka - ILR 1992 KAR 2930, this Court has held, mere possession cannot make an agriculturist or a person a deemed tenant. In the absence of establishing the same, it is not open to the claimants to be a deemed tenant. This decision aptly applies to the case on hand. Petition is dismissed.