JUDGMENT : S. N. SATYANARAYANA, J. 1. The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 23.3.2018 in proceedings bearing No.LRF.No.829/1974-75 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Doddaballapur, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under: The petitioner herein would contend that he is in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of land bearing Survey Number (1) 48/1 measuring 2 acres 34 guntas, (2) 49/1 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas, (3) 47/1 measuring 5 acres 37 guntas, (4) 44/2 measuring 15 guntas and (6) 41 measuring 4 acres. Hence, he filed an application in Form No.7 on 28.12.1974 where in a column left for showing the name of landlord, he does not mention the name of anybody as owner of the aforesaid lands and without mentioning the name of any person, he is trying to seek occupancy right in respect of said lands as a tenant thereof. 3. In the said proceedings, notice is ordered by the Tribunal to respondent - Madiwala Thimmaiah, father of 3rd respondent herein on the basis that Thimmaiah's name was seen in column Nos.9 and 12 of all the survey numbers. However, the applicant who filed Form No.7 was not able to establish that he was tenant of the aforesaid lands from the owner who had title to the same and at the same time, from the person to whom notice was sent by the Tribunal on the premise that he is the owner of the said lands, namely 3rd respondent's father - Madivala Thimmaiah. 4. Incidentally, learned counsel for the petitioner would bring to the notice of this Court that, the name of Thimmaiah which is seen in column Nos.9 and 12 of RTCs is not the father of 3rd respondent, namely Madivala Thimmiaah, but it is Thimmaiah s/o Muniyappa, who is a different person. However, in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, 3rd respondent's father - Madiwala Thimmaiah has contended that he is the owner of all lands referred to in From No.7 of the petitioner having purchased the same from one Anjanappa and Kempanna under a registered sale deed in the month of March 1959. Though such a submission is made by him, there is nothing on record to show that during March 1959 Anjanappa and Kempanna were the owners of aforesaid lands. 5. Though such a submission is made by him, there is nothing on record to show that during March 1959 Anjanappa and Kempanna were the owners of aforesaid lands. 5. At this juncture, this Court went through the entire revenue record pertaining to the lands in question, which was produced before this Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate. On going through the same, it is seen that the lands which are referred to in From No.7 by the petitioner herein are admittedly Inam lands coming within the scope of Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 ('Inams Abolition Act' for short). According to the revenue records, the person who was the Barawardar of aforesaid Inam lands was one Jodidar Puttannachar since it is a jodi inam and there is nothing on record to show how title has flown from him to anybody. However, the petitioner would assert that the lands in question were purchased by one Basavalingappa from Patel K.Veerabadraiah under registered sale deed dated 25.7.1956, that after the Inams Abolition Act coming into force, it is the petitioner's contention that he took the lands in question for cultivation under an unregistered saguvali chit in the year 1956 and based on that, he is in cultivation and enjoyment of the same. 6. When the sale deed dated 25.7.1956 is looked into, it would clearly indicate that Basavalingappa has purchased the lands in question from one Patel K.Veerabadraiah. However, there is nothing on record to show the title of Patel Veerabadraiah to the said lands, inasmuch as the said lands were under the ownership of Jodidar Puttannachar, who has not sold the property to Basavalingappa. In the meanwhile, the very same lands are claimed by Madiwala Thimmaiah - 3rd respondent's father under a registered sale deed of March 1959. Interestingly, he does not disclose the date on which he purchased the said lands except stating that it was purchased in the month of March 1959. Besides his submission, the document of title has not seen the light of the day which is not even produced in any of the proceedings before any authority. 7. Interestingly, he does not disclose the date on which he purchased the said lands except stating that it was purchased in the month of March 1959. Besides his submission, the document of title has not seen the light of the day which is not even produced in any of the proceedings before any authority. 7. With this, what is seen is that, initially proceedings were initiated before the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in Case No.17/1959-60, where the petitioner herein, namely Shivarudraiah contended that he is tenant under Basavalingappa and Basavalingappa approached the authorities as owner of the lands in question. Similarly Madiwala Thimmaiah, the father of 3rd respondent herein approached the authorities as owner of the said lands. 8. In the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, he disbelieved the claim of Madiwala Thimmaiah, that he purchased the land from Kempanna and Anjanappa in the Month of March 1959, i.e., after the vesting of the village in Government on 1.2.1959 and so far as Basavalingappa and Shivarudraiah are concerned, he accepted their claim to the lands in question except for Sy.No.41 as the same is a tank bed and reserved land according to the survey settlement, Akarband and accordingly, ordered for registering their names under Sections 9 and 9A of the Act, respectively in the revenue records by order dated 10.3.1965. Against which none of these three persons went in appeal and that has reached finality thereby indicating that the aforesaid lands which vested in the Government on 1.2.1959 became government land and there is no dispute so far as this aspect is concerned. 9. In the meanwhile, it is seen that there was an amendment to the Land Reforms Act in bringing Section 48A to ensure that the cultivators would get title to the properties which are under their cultivation, where a provision was made to them to approach the authorities by filing Form No.7 provided, they were cultivators as on the appointed date, namely 1.3.1974. One of the riders to said provision is that, the parties should have document to show that they have secured tenancy right from the owner of the property in the form of Geni Chit. In addition to that, their names also should be seen in RTC for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, which are the relevant years. 10. One of the riders to said provision is that, the parties should have document to show that they have secured tenancy right from the owner of the property in the form of Geni Chit. In addition to that, their names also should be seen in RTC for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, which are the relevant years. 10. In the instant case, as could be seen from the record, the name of Shivarudraiah - petitioner herein is not there either in column No.12 or in any other place in the RTC. Though he is contending that he is tenant and his other contention that he has secured tenancy right under Geni Chit in the year 1956 is already considered by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in case No.17/1959-60, disposed of by order dated 10.3.1965, the same would clearly indicate that said order being passed without reference to any existing right in his favour would not hold water in this proceedings under Section 48A where Form No.7 is filed. 11. Admittedly, the application which is filed by Shivarudraiah - petitioner herein, which was registered in No.LRF.829/1974-75 on the file of the Land Tribunal came to be dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 1.10.1981. Thereafter, the said order was subject matter of challenge before this Court in WP.No.6496/1982, which came to be allowed by order dated 19.9.1985 in remanding the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration where all the contentions raised by the applicant - Shivarudraiah and respondent - Madiwala Thimmaiah were kept open. It is this remanded matter, which was taken up by the Land Tribunal and disposed of by order dated 18.4.2002, which was subject matter of challenge before this Court in WP.No.25666/2009 by 3rd respondent since his father Madiwala Thimmaiah had died by then. The said writ petition was also allowed by order dated 29.1.2014 in remanding the matter back to the Land Tribunal for the second time. In this second remand, the application of the petitioner herein is rejected by the Land Tribunal by order dated 23.3.2018, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition. 12. When this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State was directed to secure the original records in No.LRF.829/1974-75. In this second remand, the application of the petitioner herein is rejected by the Land Tribunal by order dated 23.3.2018, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition. 12. When this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State was directed to secure the original records in No.LRF.829/1974-75. After securing the same, this Court went through the entire proceedings right from the date of filing of the application in Form No.7 on 28.12.1974 to passing of the order impugned. While doing so, this Court also looked into earlier proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in case No.17/1959-60 which is disposed of by order dated 10.3.1965. With this, what is seen by this Court is as under: 13. Admittedly, all these lands are the lands which belonged to Jodidar Puttannachar s/o Narasimhachar of Tarabanahalli village, Doddaballapur Taluk. Out of that Sy.No.41 measuring 4 acres is a tank bed and the same cannot be considered either for issuance of occupancy certificate under the Inams Abolition Act or under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Now what remains for consideration is, remaining 4 lands, namely Sy.No.48/1, 49/1, 47/1 and 44/2, the extent against which is as referred to supra. Originally it is seen that, in case No.17/1959-60 three applications were filed before the Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition; one by the petitioner - Shivarudraiah, who filed application as tenant of the said lands and he claimed tenancy right from one Basavalingappa contending that Basavalingappa purchased the aforesaid lands from Patel Veerabradraiah on 25.7.1956, thereafter, executed saguvali chit in his favour on 25.7.1956 and since then he has been in possession and cultivation of said lands. 14. In the meanwhile, one another person who is applicant before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition is Madivala Thimmaiah, 3rd respondent's father contending that he has purchased the aforesaid lands under the registered sale deed registered in the month of March 1959 (He does not refer to date of sale deed on which it was executed in his favour). However, he would contend that he has purchased the lands from one Anjanappa and Kempanna. When the material on record is looked into, there is no document to show that either the vendors of Madiwala Thimmaiah or vendors of Basavalingappa were owners of the lands in question. However, he would contend that he has purchased the lands from one Anjanappa and Kempanna. When the material on record is looked into, there is no document to show that either the vendors of Madiwala Thimmaiah or vendors of Basavalingappa were owners of the lands in question. On the contrary, it is Jodidar Puttannachar, who is shown as Barwardar. In the case of Basavalingappa, he has not produced the sale deed under which he has purchased the lands in question. So far as Madiwala Thimmaiah, 3rd respondent's father is concerned, neither he has furnished the copy of sale deed nor the date on which he has purchased the lands in question. 15. In any event, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams after going through the material on record allowed the application filed by Bavalingappa who is said to be the person who has given aforesaid properties for Geni in favour of Shivarudraiah - petitioner herein and rejected the application of Madiwala Thimmaiah who would contend that he has purchased the lands in question. Accordingly, it is ordered to be registered in their names i.e., Basavalingappa and Shivarudraiah, the applicant before the Land Tribunal, who would accept Basavalingaiah as his owner and try to claim his tenancy right. However, in support of his contention that he is tenant, Shivarudraiah - petitioner herein, as discussed supra has not produced any document except the Geni chit which is said to be executed between himself and Basavalingappa when the material on record discloses neither Basavalingappa as the owner in column Nos.9 or 12 nor the petitioner herein as cultivator in possession in column No.12 which are the main ingredients to decide the tenancy right. 16. It is in this background, initially the application itself was rejected as not maintainable, since the name of the owner not being shown and the relevant documents not being produced. The said order of rejection is of the year 1981 which was belatedly challenged before the Coordinate Bench of this Court WP.No.6496/1982, which was disposed of in the year 1985 in remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The said order of rejection is of the year 1981 which was belatedly challenged before the Coordinate Bench of this Court WP.No.6496/1982, which was disposed of in the year 1985 in remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. It is in the first remand, the Tribunal inspite of their being no documents to demonstrate with reference to cultivation of the petitioner herein to the lands in question has granted occupancy right in the year 2002, which was again subject matter of challenge before this Court in WP.No.25666/2009. This writ petition also came to be disposed of in the year 2014 in remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for second time. In the second remand, the claim of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that, there is no document to establish that he was cultivating the lands in question at any point of time with reference to the entries in column No.12 of the RTC for all survey numbers, which appears to be correct. 17. It is on this aspect, when this Court looked into the entire record, it is clearly seen that the petitioner who contends before the Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams that he was tenant of the lands in question was not able to demonstrate that Basavalingappa was the owner of the said lands and he was the tenant under him. However, in the said proceedings though an order was passed, it is without reference to any existing right in his favour. So far as Madiwala Thimmaiah is concerned right from the beginning till this day he was not able to demonstrate that he was the owner of the lands in question as contended by him. Therefore, question of accepting him as the owner and direct him to take possession of the lands does not arise. 18. As stated supra, since the lands in question already being vested in the Government on 1.2.1959, in the present set of facts since the order of Land Tribunal rejecting the tenancy claim of the petitioner in proceedings No.LRF.829/1974-75 disposed of on 23.3.2018 being confirmed by this Court, the said land would get vested with the State, this Court would direct that the Tahsildar of Doddaballapur Taluk shall forthwith take possession of the said lands and get the same registered as Government land in all the revenue records. 19. 19. With such observations, this writ petition is disposed of.