ORDER : The case made out is that the father of the 1st petitioner and the father-in-law of the 2nd petitioner had been rendering religious service as Archak at 3rd respondent’s Temple. They were personally cultivating the land bearing No. 38 measuring 3 acres 16 guntas and land bearing No.16 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas of Choranahalli Grama, Varuna hobli of Mysuru Taluk & District. They were cultivating the same since 1-7-1970 and after the death of his father, the 1st petitioner and the father-in-law of the 2nd petitioner have been cultivating the same jointly. They filed an application under the Karnataka Inams Abolition Act before the Land Tribunal, Mysuru to register them as occupants. The matter was transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru, The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order rejected the said plea. Hence, the present petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Deputy Commissioner committed an error in rejecting their plea. That the records would indicate that the 1st petitioner’s father and thereafter the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have been cultivating the lands. Therefore, there is an error committed by the Tribunal. The same is disputed by the learned High Court Government Pleader. 3. The impugned order was passed on 23-10-2000. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008. There is a delay of 8 years in filing the writ petition. No explanation has been offered whatsoever, in order to explain the delay of 8 years in filing the petition. Hence, on the ground of delay itself, the petition requires to be rejected. 4. Even on merits, it could be seen that there is no material produced by the petitioners to indicate that cultivation was being made by them. The Deputy Commissioner considered the material evidence on record and rightly came to the conclusion that in the absence of any material to indicate that the petitioner No.1 or his father were cultivating the lands in question the occupancy rights could not be granted to him. The contention of the petitioners by placing reliance on Annexure-A, that the Official Memorandum dated 27-8-1986 would indicate that petitioner No.1 is a Archak would not come to his aid. There are no records produced by him, in order to show that the lands in question were being cultivated by him. The contention of the petitioners by placing reliance on Annexure-A, that the Official Memorandum dated 27-8-1986 would indicate that petitioner No.1 is a Archak would not come to his aid. There are no records produced by him, in order to show that the lands in question were being cultivated by him. In the absence of any material to show that he was cultivating the lands occupancy rights, cannot be granted. I find no error committed by the Deputy Commissioner in rejecting the plea of the petitioners sans any material. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Rule discharged.