ORDER : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. 1. Petitioners 1 and 2 are sons of one Sanjeevappa and Munikrishnappa respectively and grandsons of one Muniswamappa, who is said to be tenant in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 22/3 of Varthur Village, measuring to an extent of 5 acres 29 guntas. The fact that aforesaid land is Shanbog Inamthi land which was under the ownership of one Narayanrao is not in dispute. It is seen that when an amendment to Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, came into force Sanjeevappa had filed an application in Form 7 seeking occupancy right in respect of aforesaid land which is in No. LRF.5391/1979-80. The said application on contest came to be allowed in granting occupancy right in favour of Sanjeevappa by order dated 30-5-1980. Thereafter, records would indicate that the landlord Narayanarao preferred a Writ Petition No. 27349 of 1991 impugning the order of Land Tribunal dated 30-5-1980 which came to be allowed by order dated 5-8-1996 in setting aside the order of Land Tribunal and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. 2. It is stated that when proceedings before the Land Tribunal was pending in No. LRF.5391/1979-80 the legal representatives of original landlord Narayanarao, who had died by then and represented by his L.Rs., who were respondents in said proceedings said to have entered into a settlement with applicant-Sanjeevappa. Pursuant to that an order is passed on 21-10-2002 in Sanjeevappa seeking recall of his application filed for occupancy right in respect of land in question. The order sheet of said proceedings which is produced before this Court at Annexure-F would clearly show that Sanjeevappa was personally present before the Land Tribunal and he has affixed his signature to the order sheet in accepting his willingness to take back his application filed seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of land in question. The records would further indicate that subsequently, the respondents in No. LRF.5391/1979-80, namely the legal representatives of original landlord Narayanarao sold the land in question, namely Sy. No. 22/3 of Varthur Village, measuring to an extent of 5 acres 29 guntas in favour of respondents 9 and 10 in this proceedings under a registered sale deed dated 12-12-2003. 3. The records would further indicate that subsequently, the respondents in No. LRF.5391/1979-80, namely the legal representatives of original landlord Narayanarao sold the land in question, namely Sy. No. 22/3 of Varthur Village, measuring to an extent of 5 acres 29 guntas in favour of respondents 9 and 10 in this proceedings under a registered sale deed dated 12-12-2003. 3. It is seen that for a longtime nothing transpired and it is in the month of July 2007 for the first time a suit in O.S. No. 230 of 2007 is filed by the second petitioner for the relief of injunction against one Yashodamma and others on the premise that they are trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment in respect of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 22/3 and 22/4. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed on 25-7-2007 seeking to quash the order dated 24-10-2002 passed in No. LRF.5391/1979-80 on the ground that the land in question which was granted in favour of Sanjeevappa was put into the family hotchpotch for enjoyment of the members of joint family. Thereafter, partition had taken place between said Sanjeevappa and his brother Munikrishnappa. In the said partition, land in question is allotted to the share of Munikrishnappa and accordingly, Munikrishnappa was the owner of said land. It is stated that Sanjeevappa who did not have any right in the said land conceded for closure of proceedings in No. LRF.5391/1979-80 by dismissing his application filed seeking grant of occupancy right. It is further contended that pursuant to Sanjeevappa seeking rejection of his application, order dated 24-10-2002 was passed in closing the said proceedings. The said order is said to be erroneous, inasmuch as said land had already come to the share of Munikrishnappa and therefore, said order is not binding on them. Hence, same is required to be quashed. 4. It is further contended that pursuant to Sanjeevappa seeking rejection of his application, order dated 24-10-2002 was passed in closing the said proceedings. The said order is said to be erroneous, inasmuch as said land had already come to the share of Munikrishnappa and therefore, said order is not binding on them. Hence, same is required to be quashed. 4. In this proceedings, after service of notice to respondents and after securing records, when this writ petition is taken up for hearing, it is seen that though in the writ petition it is stated that land in question which was subject-matter of proceedings in No. LRF.5391/1979-80, wherein recognizing Sanjeevappa as a tenant to seek occupancy right saguvali chit is issued in Form 10 in his favour in the year 1980 and the same was subject-matter of partition, the same is not substantiated by producing any registered document, inasmuch as there is no reference to the date on which partition has taken place between Sanjeevappa and Munikrishnappa. Though in the writ petition it is sated that after partition Munikrishnappa became the absolute owner of land in question, mutation proceedings was not initiated and land was not registered in his name pursuant to the so-called partition said to have been entered into between Sanjeevappa and Munikrishnappa. Even assuming that such a partition had taken place, how Sanjeevappa's son could file the present writ petition challenging the order dated 24-10-2002 passed by the Land Tribunal on the premise that as on the date when settlement was entered into the land in question was allotted to the share of Munikrishnappa and he had become the absolute owner thereof, as such Sanjeevappa did not have any right to the land in question. Further, even if it is accepted that Sanjeevappa's son has filed this writ petition, how he could initiate the same without challenging the conduct of his father without attributing any motives to his father in entering into such compromise with landlords. 5. In the circumstances, when the documents on record are looked into, they would indicate that initially occupancy right was considered in favour of Sanjeevappa by order dated 30-5-1980 which was subject-matter in W.P. No. 23349 of 1991, which was allowed by order dated 5-8-1996 and matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal. 5. In the circumstances, when the documents on record are looked into, they would indicate that initially occupancy right was considered in favour of Sanjeevappa by order dated 30-5-1980 which was subject-matter in W.P. No. 23349 of 1991, which was allowed by order dated 5-8-1996 and matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal. In the remanded matter, on 24-10-2002 a settlement is arrived at between the parties, wherein Sanjeevappa withdraws the application filed by him seeking occupancy right in respect of the land in question and consequently, an order is passed in dismissing the application on the very same day, which is followed by a sale transaction in creating third party interest in respect of same land by the legal representatives of original landlord Narayanarao in favour of respondents 9 and 10. 6. It is only after sale of land in question in favour of third party, for the first time original suit is filed for the relief of temporary injunction on the premise that there was partition between the family members wherein land in question has fallen to the share of Munikrishnappa. Though such averments are made, there are no documents to substantiate partition between the family members, that subsequent to such partition land in question has fallen to the share of Munikrishnappa and he is registered as kathedar thereof. Even otherwise though proceedings in No. LRF.5391/2008 is closed as long back as on 24-10-2002, no steps are taken to challenge the same and the petitioners have allowed further transactions in respect of land in question in which third party interests are created where respondents 9 and 10 have become bona fide purchasers of land in question. It is nearly four years after the land in question is sold in favour of respondents 9 and 10 by the legal representatives of original landlord the present writ petition is filed not only by one of the sons of so-called subsequent owner of land in question Munikrishnappa, but also by one of the sons of erstwhile applicant-Sanjeevappa. 7. It is nearly four years after the land in question is sold in favour of respondents 9 and 10 by the legal representatives of original landlord the present writ petition is filed not only by one of the sons of so-called subsequent owner of land in question Munikrishnappa, but also by one of the sons of erstwhile applicant-Sanjeevappa. 7. In the writ petition though several averments are made with reference to land in question being allotted to the share of Munikrishnappa and he being the sole owner of land in question, how and for what reason son of Sanjeevappa has joined the son of Munikrishnappa in filing the present writ petition is not explained thereby giving an indication that entire exercise in filling the present writ petition is to re-open the proceedings initiated in No. LRF.5391/1979-80 and then to reagitate the matter not only against the legal representatives of erstwhile landlord of land in question, but also the subsequent purchasers, who have acquired the land in question when no proceedings were pending against said land and which was free from all litigations. In the entire writ petition there is no reference as to why petitioners did not choose to challenge the order dated 24-10-2002 immediately after passing of said order and why they waited for filing this writ petition till 25-7-2007. The averments which are made in the writ petition do not support the averments made in the original suit, which is filed for the relief of injunction only. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the averments in the writ petition contending that there was a partition between the applicant-Sanjeevappa and his brother Munikrishnappa, in the said partition land in question is allotted to the share of Munikrishnappa, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and order dated 21-10-2002 is passed behind his back cannot be accepted in the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. Infact, the documents produced do not support the averments made in the writ petition thereby indicating that this could be a chance litigation between the parties after entering into some sort of settlement with reference to land in question and after same is sold in favour of respondents 9 and 10 in this proceedings. 9. Infact, the documents produced do not support the averments made in the writ petition thereby indicating that this could be a chance litigation between the parties after entering into some sort of settlement with reference to land in question and after same is sold in favour of respondents 9 and 10 in this proceedings. 9. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners would try to rely upon the following judgments: (1) In the matter of Muniyallappa v. Krishnamurthy B.M. and Others 1977 (1) Kar. L.J. 389 (DB): ILR 1977 Kar. 700 (DB) : AIR 1977 Kant. 137 (DB). (2) In the matter of Siddappa (dead) by L.Rs and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others AIR 2000 SC 1676 : ILR 2000 Kar. 2323 (SC). (3) In the matter of Puttegowda v. State of Karnataka and Others 1980 (1) Kar. L.J. 281 (DB) : ILR 1980 Kar. 160 (DB) : AIR 1980 Kant. 102 (DB). (4) In the matter of Sakrappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1985 Kar. 1833. (5) In the matter of Kalagondadha Basavannappa and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others 2016 (1) AKR 583 : 2016 (2) KCCR 1717. 9.1 Coming to first of the judgments viz., Muniyallappa's case, it is with reference to deemed tenant. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that Muniswamappa initially claimed himself as a tenant in respect of the subject land and thereafter, in terms of the settlement with owner of the land he has voluntarily conceded for closure of the proceedings by dismissing his application filed in Form 7. It is after his death and long after several transactions have taken place, his brother's son is trying to claim that earlier to Muniswamappa conceding for dismissal of his application filed in Form 7 he had secured title to the property, which he has failed to establish. Therefore, this judgment would not have any relevance to the facts of the case on hand. 9.2 Similar is the situation with second judgment, which is in Siddappa (dead) by his L.Rs. case, wherein the claim of the tenant was rejected in view of resumption of land, which is contrary to the facts of the case on hand. In the present case, the tenant himself has contended that his application for tenancy right may be dismissed. 9.2 Similar is the situation with second judgment, which is in Siddappa (dead) by his L.Rs. case, wherein the claim of the tenant was rejected in view of resumption of land, which is contrary to the facts of the case on hand. In the present case, the tenant himself has contended that his application for tenancy right may be dismissed. 9.3 Coming to third judgment in Puttegowda's case, though this is a case of surrender, it is the person who surrendered the land dispute the same thereafter and whether surrender was given effect to, was the subject-matter. However, in the present case, the person who sought for dismissal of his application in Form 7 never challenged the same during his lifetime. Even though the title to the property was transferred from the landlord to third parties, he accepted the same and kept quiet and it is only the third party who is challenging that settlement arrived at by the applicant with the owner in withdrawing his application in Form 7 as illegal, which is not supported by any material to sustain such a claim. Therefore, even this judgment would not have any bearing on the facts of the present case. 9.4 The fourth judgment i.e., Sakrappa's case deals with vesting of land with the Government and the Government by invoking Rule Making power can seek a declaration from Tribunal that a particular land is tenant or surplus land, which is with reference to Government's right to a tenanted land. This judgment also has no applicability to the facts of the case on hand, inasmuch as interest of the Government is not at all involved in the present land and vesting is not the question which is required to be decided in the present case. 9.5 Similar is the situation in Kalagondadha Basavannappa's case, wherein the tenant himself was challenging the order of surrender. In the present case, it is not a question of surrender, it is the tenancy application itself being withdrawn by the applicant before the Tribunal. 9.5 Similar is the situation in Kalagondadha Basavannappa's case, wherein the tenant himself was challenging the order of surrender. In the present case, it is not a question of surrender, it is the tenancy application itself being withdrawn by the applicant before the Tribunal. Therefore, the facts in Kalagondadha Basavannappa's case are distinguishable to the facts of the case on hand, inasmuch as said ruling will have no bearing to the facts of the case on hand and would not support the case of the petitioners, which is built on false and fictitious averments neither supported by documents nor substantiated with reference to the facts as it stood at the time of applicant-Muniswamappa seeking dismissal of application filed by him and consequently, he being a party to the settlement where the owner was permitted to sell the land to other respondents in this proceedings. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgments, for the reasons stated supra, do not have bearing to the facts of the case on hand and therefore, question of quashing the order dated 21-10-2002 passed in No. LRF.5391/1979-80 does not arise. Accordingly, writ petition is hereby dismissed.