Judgment : 1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.12962/1997 dated 22nd August 2007 is called in question in this appeal. 2. Heard Mr. T.R. Subbanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.7 and 8. 3. The fact leading to this appeal are as hereunder: The appellant claiming to be the tenant of 0.35 guntas of land in Sy.No.19 of Hagalahalli Village under late Mallaiah filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Ramanagaram. The Tribunal by its order dated 23.09.1988 granted occupancy rights in his favour, which was challenged by Mallaiah, the owner of the land before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in ALRA No.3/1990. On account of amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the Appellate Authority was abolished and the appeal was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.12962/1997. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that RTC entries are standing in the name of the appellant only from 1976 and that either on the appointed date (01.03.1974) or immediately prior thereto, the appellant was not cultivating the land. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Land Tribunal by allowing the writ petition of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The main contention of Sri. Subbanna, learned Senior Counsel for appellant is that the learned Single Judge has transgressed his limits of jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and the re-appreciation of the evidence by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the actual evidence let in by the parties. According to him, the order of the Land Tribunal does not suffers from any infirmity in order to interfere with by the learned Single Judge. To support his arguments he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Shahnawaz Akhtar and another Vs. 1st Additional District Judge, Varanasi and other ( 2002 (8) Supreme 638 . Relying upon this judgment he contends that under a writ jurisdiction the Writ Court cannot exercise the powers vested to an Appellant Court. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. We are unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Relying upon this judgment he contends that under a writ jurisdiction the Writ Court cannot exercise the powers vested to an Appellant Court. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. We are unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Subbanna because on perusal of the records produced by the Government Advocate, it is clear that the Form No.7 was filed by the appellant on 05.06.1979, wherein it is stated that he has been cultivating the land as a tenant for last three years. The appellant cannot go beyond Form No.7. The Land Tribunal would get a jurisdiction either to grant or reject the claim of a person based on Form No.7 only. When Form No.7 filed by the appellant clearly shows that he has become tenant subsequent to 01.03.1974. Any person who was not a tenant as on 01.03.1974 (appointed date) the application filed by such person ought to have been rejected by the Land Tribunal in limine. We have also seen the RTC extracts produced by the parties. In the records, the RTC Extracts for the year 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1975-76 the name of the owner Mallaiah is shown as cultivator. For the year 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 the name of the appellant Venkatagiriyaiah is shown as cultivator. 6. From looking into Form No.7 and RTC extract this Court can only that appellant was not cultivating the land either on 01.03.1974 or prior to that. The Tribunal even without looking into the RTC extracts and Form No.7 has granted occupancy rights. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in granting the occupancy rights. 7. At this stage, Mr. Subbanna submits that if the learned Single Judge had looked into the evidence of the parties, the learned Single Judge would not have set aside the order of the Tribunal. But, unfortunately either of the Advocates who assisted the learned Single Judge have not brought to the notice of him about the Form No.7 filed by the appellant. When the appellant has filed Form No.7 stating that he has become tenant in the year 1976, when such application could not have been considered and entertained by the Land Tribunal, any amount of oral evidence let in by the parties is of no consequences. When the appellant has filed Form No.7 stating that he has become tenant in the year 1976, when such application could not have been considered and entertained by the Land Tribunal, any amount of oral evidence let in by the parties is of no consequences. A person can claim occupancy rights provided he was a tenant as on 01.03.1974 or prior to that. In view of Form No.7, the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and that the arguments advanced by him that the evidence discloses that the appellant was a tenant for any number of years is of no consequences. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.