JUDGMENT 1. The appellants, who were petitioners in writ petition, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.3860/2006 (GM-CPC) dated 8th March 2010, have presented this writ appeal. 2. In the writ petition filed by the petitioners/appellants herein, they had sought for quashing the order at Annexure A therein dated 1st February 2006 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore in Appeal No. 1390/2005 and also the order dated 24th August 2005 passed by the first respondent - Officer authorized (but wrongly mentioned as Special Officer, Land Tribunal, Udupi in the cause title), vide Annexure B to the writ petition. 3. The said writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal passed by the learned Single Judge and the orders passed by the Officer authorized and the Tribunal, the appellants are before this Court, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 4. Brief facts of the case in hand as stated by the appellants are that, their father, deceased Balakrishna Bhat was a tenant in respect of land bearing Sy.No.30,/3C(1), measuring 03 acres 73 cents situate at "Padu-100" village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District and cultivating the said land as tenant and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and subsequently, after the death of their father, Balakrishna Bhat, they continued to cultivate the said land and have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, they contended that their father being a tenant had also received rent/geni receipts dated 13/12/1967 and 28/5/1968 for having collected the yearly rent. But, unfortunately, the father of the appellants did not file Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights. Be that as it may, ir> the month of January 1989, the Tahsildar, Udupi after hearing the father of the appellants, removed his name from the record of rights on the ground that he did not file Form No.7 and the said order of the Tahsildar was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 5th June 1989. Be that as it may, ir> the month of January 1989, the Tahsildar, Udupi after hearing the father of the appellants, removed his name from the record of rights on the ground that he did not file Form No.7 and the said order of the Tahsildar was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 5th June 1989. When things stood thus, an amendment was brought to Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act, which came into force from 01-11-1998, wherein, a provision was made, wherein, such of those persons who did not file Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights even though they are cultivating the land since 01-03-1974 till 01-11-1998 (by Act No.23 of 1998), can file Form No.7-A under Section 77-A of the amended Land Reforms Act, seeking occupancy rights. 5. Accordingly, the mother of the appellants and wife of deceased Balakrishna Bhat, Smt. Suguna @ Radha Bai Bhat filed Form No.7-A for registration of occupancy rights before the Officer authorized, viz. the Assistant Commissioner, Udupi Sub Division, Udupi cum Officer authorized. It is the case of the appellants that they have produced the relevant documents to establish their case and the landlord, except filing the written statement, making false statements, has not produced any material. However, ignoring all these, the Officer authorized has proceeded to pass the order, rejecting Form No.7-A filed by the mother of the appellants. The appellants, being the legal representations of their deceased mother, filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short) in Appeal No. 1390/2005. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 1st February 2006 and the Tribunal, in turn, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the counsel representing both the parties and also after going through the entire records available on file, has dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the Officer authorized on two grounds. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 1st February 2006 and the Tribunal, in turn, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the counsel representing both the parties and also after going through the entire records available on file, has dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the Officer authorized on two grounds. One, on the ground that, the appellants have not produced any authenticated documents to show that the land in question is vested in Government as on the relevant date, i.e. 01-03-197:4 arid two, they have not produced any relevant document to establish that they were cultivating the land from 01-03-1974 to 01-11-1998 as per Section 77-A of the amended Land Reforms Act, i961, Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Officer authorized dated 24th August 2005 and also the order passed by the Tribunal dated 1st February 2006 in Appeal No. 1390/2005, the appellants herein filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3860/2006 (LR). The writ petition filed by the appellants was also dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Officer authorized and the order passed by the Tribunal. Not being satisfied with the order impugned as referred above, the appellants herein felt necessitated to present this writ appeal, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 6. It is the case of the contesting respondents that, in respect of the suit schedule land, there was a partition in the family of respondent Nos.3 to 14 in the year 1956 and in the said partition, the land in question was kept apart for maintenance of the family requirements as 'viniyoga' and the eldest member of the family was managing the family and one Shanthiraj Ballal was the eldest member of the family and managing the affairs of the family till his death in 1968. After his death, he was succeeded by Jagatpal Ballal till his death on 15-07-1985. Subsequently, there was further partition dated 15/07/1987 and the above said land measuring 03 acres 74 cents was divided into 5 shares and one Laxmidhara Ballal continued to manage the said property with the consent of the other sharers of said land. The said Laxmidhara Ballal passed away on 06-09-1994 and upon his death, one Raviraj Ballal was managing the above said property. 7. The said Laxmidhara Ballal passed away on 06-09-1994 and upon his death, one Raviraj Ballal was managing the above said property. 7. It is the further case of the contesting respondents 3 to 14 that late Balakrishna Bhat was an Ayurvedic Doctor and he wanted some accommodation at "Padu 100' village and therefore, he approached one Shanthiraj Ballal, who was a highly respected member of the Jain family and owned vast extents of land. Considering the fact that deceased Balakrishna Bhat was an Ayurvedic Doctor, by profession, his request was considered sympathetically by the said Shanthiraj Ballal and he sold an extent of 2.65 acres of land at 'Padu-100' village for a nominal sum to deceased Balakrishna Bhat. The deceased Balakrishna Bhat continued his profession there and he was not a tenant under Shanthiraj Ballal and there was no agrarian relationship between them. The said Balakrishna Bhat, the alleged tenant passed away leaving behind his wife, Smt Suguna Bhat @ Radha Bai Bhat and J 2 children. The deceased Suguna Bhat @ Radha Bai Bhat filed Form No.7-A under Section 77-A of the amended Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 03.74 acres in Sy.No.30/31C and 30/3G, but instead of showing the name of the owner as Raviraj Ballal, who was managing the said property, the names of Sunanda Ballal and Sumithra Ballal were shown as land owners. The application filed in Form No.7-A by the deceased Suguna Bhat, now represented by appellants herein, being misconceived, was rejected at the threshold by the Officer authorized on the ground that they have failed to establish that there are cultivating the land in question as tenants from 01-03-1974 till 01-11-1998 as per the amended Section 77-A of the Land Reforms Act. Further they contended that the land in question allegedly claimed by the appellants is kept for the purpose of the family requirements and that the said land was managed by the family members throughout, upon the death of the eldest family member, as per their customs. Further, they have contended that, the family members of respondents 3 to 14, upon the death, are cremated in their family land as per their custom, inasmuch as in the year 1982, one of the family members, namely Smt. Kusumaji Amma died and she was cremated in the said land and in the year 1987, another family member, viz. Further, they have contended that, the family members of respondents 3 to 14, upon the death, are cremated in their family land as per their custom, inasmuch as in the year 1982, one of the family members, namely Smt. Kusumaji Amma died and she was cremated in the said land and in the year 1987, another family member, viz. Shri. Jagatpal Ballal died and he was also cremated in the said land. All these facts prove beyond reasonable doubt that, the land in question was continuously in possession and enjoyment by the family members of respondents 3 to 14 and was never tenanted either to deceased Balakrishna Bhat or Smt Suguna Bhat @ Radha Bai Bhat or the appellants herein. On the other hand, neither Balakrishna Bhat nor Suguna Bhat nor their children, the appellants herein have shown any piece of document to establish that they are the tenants in respect of the land in question. Therefore, they submitted that when the appellants have failed to establish that they are cultivating the land in question from 01-03-1974 till 01-11-1998, which is a mandate under Section 77-A of the amended Land Reforms Act, the Officer authorized, the Tribunal and subsequently, the learned Single Judge, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact and dismissed the claim of the appellants. Hence, interference in the same, exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not called for, in view of the well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgments. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the instant appeal filed by appellants may also be dismissed as devoid of merits. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for first respondent/Officer authorized (but wrongly mentioned as Special Officer, Land Tribunal, Udupi), contended that in spite of sufficient opportunity being provided to the appellants, neither the deceased Balakrishna Bhat, father of appellants, nor Suguna Bhat @ Radha Bai Bhat, the mother of appellants or the appellants have produced any credible documents to establish that, the land in question is a tenanted land and vested in Government as on 01-03-1974 or any authenticated document to establish that they are in possession of the land in question and cultivating the land since 01-03-1974 till 01-11-1998. He further submitted that, the Officer authorized under the Land Reforms Act and the Appellate Authority have rightly rejected the claim made by the 5th appellant herein and the same is rightly confirmed by the learned Single Judge, who has recorded a specific finding, after due consideration of the entire material on record and hence, interference in the same is not called for. 9. In reply to the said submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondents as stated supra, the learned counsel appearing for appellants sought to substantiate the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and also the writ petition, stating that, they have produced the record of rights for the year 1967-68 at Annexure C to the 'writ petition, wherein the name of their deceased father, Balakrishna Bhat has been mentioned in the cultivator's column for the agricultural years 1967-68 to 1979-80 and the crop grown is shown as 'rice'. Further, he placed heavy reliance on Annexure D dated 08/11/2005 issued by the Tahsildar, Udupi, wherein the Tahsildar has stated that there is no separate/individual pahani for the year 1973-74 and 1974-75 maintained in the office and therefore, it cannot be given. He also relied upon two rent receipts dated 13-12-1967 and 28-05 1968 for have collected yearly rent/geni. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that all these documents presuppose that, the land in question was cultivated by deceased Balakrishna Bhat and succeeded by his wife, Suguna Bhat, the mother of the appellants and thereafter by these appellants. This aspect of the matter has not been considered nor appreciated by the Officer authorized or by the Tribunal or by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that, the orders passed by the Officer authorized, Tribunal and also the learned Single Judge are liable to vitiate and the writ petition may be allowed granting the prayer sought therein. 10. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that, the orders passed by the Officer authorized, Tribunal and also the learned Single Judge are liable to vitiate and the writ petition may be allowed granting the prayer sought therein. 10. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 14 and after perusal of the order passed by the Officer authorized dated 24th August 2005 vide Annexure B, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 1st February 2006 in Appeal No. 1390/2005 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8th March 2010 in W.P.No.3860/2006 (LR), it is manifest on the face of the said orders that, there is no error of law much less material irregularity as such committed by the two authorities and the learned Single Judge in passing the said orders nor there is any miscarriage of justice at the hands of the authorities and the learned Single Judge, for the reason that, the appellants, except making oral statements, have not produced any credible, authenticated or clinching documents to show that they were cultivating the land in question as tenant at the relevant point of time, i.e. for the years 1970-71 to 1973-74 or from 01-03-1974 till 01-11-1998 nor they have produced any relevant revenue records or levy extracts for having paid the levy. 11. After microscopic evaluation of the entire material available on file, we do not find any such credible document in the original records placed before us nor produced by the appellants to substantiate their case. The only documents they have produced are record of rights at Annexure C series, wherein, in the first record or rights produced, for the year 1967-68, the name of Balakrishna Bhat is shown in cultivator's column in column No. 12(2) and in the other record of rights produced from the years 1969-70 till 1995-96, the cultivator's column in column No. 12(2) is shown blank. It is significant to note from the record of rights produced that, for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98, the name of Niranjan Ballal, S/o. Jagatpal Ballal Padu, is shown in column No.9 and also column No. 12(2). It is significant to note from the record of rights produced that, for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98, the name of Niranjan Ballal, S/o. Jagatpal Ballal Padu, is shown in column No.9 and also column No. 12(2). This clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubts that, the appellants have not produced any document, such as record of rights from the year 1971-72, 1973-74, 1974-75 till 1997-98 nor they have produced any receipt for having paid the tax or any authenticated document or examined any independent witnesses to show that they are cultivating the land in question as tenants. Just taking the ground in the writ petition and writ appeal is not sufficient to substantiate their case that, they have been cultivating the land in question as tenants. 12. Further, it is pertinent to note as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 14 that the deceased Balakrishna Bhat by profession was an Ayurvedic Doctor and he wanted to practice as Doctor in the said village and the family of respondents 3 to 14 being a reputed and respectable family in the village, owning huge extents of land, had sold an extent of 02 acres 65 cents in favour of deceased Balakrishna Bhat, for a nominal sum, for continuing his profession. The appellants, by taking undue advantage of that, are now relying upon the two rent receipts dated 13/12/1957 and 28/5/1968 for having collected yearly rent/geni. But, after going through the said receipts, which are produced along with the writ petition, it can be seen that the said receipts do not pertain to the land in question, i.e. Sy.No.30/3C(1). Therefore, no credibility could be attached to them. 13. But, after going through the said receipts, which are produced along with the writ petition, it can be seen that the said receipts do not pertain to the land in question, i.e. Sy.No.30/3C(1). Therefore, no credibility could be attached to them. 13. In this connection, it is worthwhile to refer to Section 77-A of the amended Land Reforms Act, which reads thus: 77-A Grant of land in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the Deputy Commissioner, or the [or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf] is satisfied after holding such enquiry as he deems fit, that a person.- (i) was, immediately before the first date of March, 1974, in actual possession and cultivation of any land not exceeding one unit, which has vested in the State Government under Section 44; and (ii) being entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land under Section 45 or 49, has failed to apply for registration of occupancy rights in respect of such land under sub-section (1) of Section 48-A within the period specified therein; and (iii) has continued, to be in actual possession and cultivation of such land on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997. he may [x x x x x] grant the land to such person subject to such, restrictions and conditions and in the manner, as may be prescribed., [xxxx] [xxxx]" (emphasis supplied) 14. After careful perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that, in the case on hand, the appellants have not produced an iota of document at least before this bench, to establish that they had been in continuous possession and cultivation of the land in question immediately before the 1st day of March 1974 till 01-11-1998 as per Act No.23 of 1998. Further, it can be seen that, in the copies of record of rights produced by the appellants, the name of the cultivator's column is left blank throughout. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be come to the conclusion that the appellants were under continuous possession and cultivation of the land. Further, it can be seen that, in the copies of record of rights produced by the appellants, the name of the cultivator's column is left blank throughout. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be come to the conclusion that the appellants were under continuous possession and cultivation of the land. Therefore, the application filed by the deceased mother of the appellants, Smt. Suguna @ Radha Bai Bhat under Section 77-A of the amended Land Reforms Act has been rightly rejected by the competent authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and subsequently by the learned Single Judge. 15. Further, after microscopic evaluation of the entire material available on file, more particularly, the copies of the record of rights produced by appellant, it is seen that, the entry for the relevant period in the record of rights in cultivator's column is shown blank in all the copies, except one. Therefore, this establishes beyond all reasonable doubts that, the appellants have utterly failed to make out a case in their favour, in spite of providing sufficient opportunity before the Officer authorized, Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge and also before this bench. 16. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of the firm opinion that the appellants have not made out a case in support of their stand in the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and it is not in dispute that both the authorities and learned Single Judge have after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact against the appellants. Hence, in view of the well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, interference in the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the impugned orders passed by the authorities and the learned Single Judge is not called for. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellants is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.