JUDGMENT : S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J. 1. These four appeals are in impugning the common order dated 09.08.2012, passed in four writ petitions which are W.P.No.61945/2011 C/w. W.P.Nos.67782/2011, 67913/2011 and 65597/2012. 2. The first of the appeals in W.A.No.30937/2012 is by the legal representatives of original 3rd respondent in W.P.No.67913/2011 in challenge to the order passed in the said writ petition wherein the order of Land Tribunal dated 1.12.2011 in proceedings No.TMC/DEV/SR 203/Kanadal, on the file of Land Tribunal, Raibag, in granting occupancy rights to original 3rd respondent Parushuram Laxman Biraj, so far as it pertains to land bearing Sy.Nos.26/2, 26/6 and 48/2 of Kanadal village of Raibag taluk in Belagavi district is set aside, which is challenged by the legal representatives of original 3rd respondent who are aggrieved of the same. 3. The appeal in W.A.No.30317/2013 is by the petitioner Ganapati Biraj S/o. Vittal in W.P.No.67913/2011 wherein he had challenged the order of Land Tribunal dated 01.12.2011. He being aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge, in confirming occupancy rights granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of original 3rd respondent Parushuram Laxman Biraj, so far as it pertains to land bearing Sy.Nos.26/1 and 26/5 of Kanadal village of Raibag taluk in Belagavi district. 4. The appeal in W.A.No.100092/2014 is by Ganapati Biraj S/o Vittal, petitioner in W.P.No.61945/2011. The said writ petition was filed by him challenging the order dated 4.11.2010 passed by the Land Tribunal, Raibag, in giving a finding regarding filing of Form No.7 by Parushuram Laxman Biraj as contended by him before the Assistant Commissioner of Chikkodi in No.RTS AP 185/83-84, pursuant to which enquiry was conducted and order dated 4.11.2010 was passed by the Land Tribunal based on the remand order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17749/1988. Dismissal of said W.P.No.61945/2011 is challenged in the aforesaid appeal. 5. The appeal in W.A.No.100093/2014 is by the very same Ganapati Biraj S/o Vittal who was petitioner in W.P.No.67782/2011 wherein he was challenging the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Raibag, in rejecting his application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, which was filed by him seeking permission to participate in the proceedings which was initiated seeking to consider the application in Form No.7 filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj in TMC/DEV/SR 203 of Kanadal. 6. 6. Besides this, there was one more writ petition disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.65597/2012, which was filed by the legal representatives of Savaba Laxman Biraj, who was admittedly the owner of the lands bearing Sy.No.26/2, Sy.No.26/6 and Sy.No.48/2 of Kanadal village. As against the dismissal of the said writ petition no appeal is filed by anybody. 7. Brief facts leading to the aforesaid five writ petitions and these four writ appeals are as under: Admittedly, the original respondent Parushuram Laxman Biraj was the son of Laxman Biraj. The said Laxman Biraj had in all six sons by name Dhondiba, Savaba (whose LRs. are petitioners in W.P.No.65597/2012), Kedari, Parushuram Laxman Biraj (applicant before the Land Tribunal, Raibag in Form No.7), Ranoba and Bhiva (admittedly owner of lands bearing Sy.No.26/1 and Sy.No.26/5, Kanadal village). The Records would indicate that there was a dispute between members of the family of original propositus Laxman in tenancy right being claimed by 3rd son of Laxman, namely Parushuram Laxman Biraj as tenant of the aforesaid land. It is seen that he had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.124/1981 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Chikkodi, for the relief of declaration and injunction contending that he is the tenant of the aforesaid five lands. Since the tenancy issue was involved in the said suit, the same was referred to the Land Tribunal, Raibag, for consideration. 8. In the meanwhile, it is seen that he was claiming tenancy right based on the entry in revenue records to the effect that he was registered as protected tenant under Bombay Tenancy Act, relying upon the mutation entry in M.E.No.466 dated 06.01.1951. On the basis of aforesaid entry he was claiming tenancy right in respect of the said land. Admittedly, the said lands are not the lands of the third parties. Out of the 5 lands, lands bearing Sy.No.26/2, Sy.No.26/6 and Sy.No.48/2 of Kanadal village are the properties of Parushuram's elder brother Savaba and the land bearing Sy.No.26/1 and Sy.No.26/5 are the lands belonging to the younger brother of Parushuram Laxman Biraj namely Bhiva. 9. It is stated that they were not living jointly and they were separated and there is no documents on record to demonstrate the same. 9. It is stated that they were not living jointly and they were separated and there is no documents on record to demonstrate the same. The said family was divided as could be seen in the pleadings in O.S.No.15/1988, which was filed by Ganapati Vittal Biraj, appellant in two of the writ appeals herein against the original rival contestant Parashuram Laxman Biraj who is the grand uncle of Ganapati Vittal Biraj, where it is stated that there was partition in the Biraj's family in the year 1945. It is seen that this land belonging to Savaba is purchased by Ganapati Vittal Biraj, who is none other than Parushuram's elder brother Dondiba's grandson. Parushurama's elder brother Dondiba had a son by name Vittal and his son is Ganapati. This Ganapathi has purchased his grand uncle's property namely lands bearing Sy.No.26/2, Sy.No.26/6 and Sy.No.48/2 under registered sale deed dated 30.10.1980. 10. Thereafter, he got the aforesaid three items of the land registered in his name in the revenue records vide M.E.No.1384. It is this entry, which was subject matter of challenge by Parushuram Laxman Biraj on the ground that the said lands are his tenancy lands and they were registered in his name vide M.E.No.466 of the year 1951. The same could not have been disturbed without notice to him and the entry which is changed the name of Ganapati Vittal Biraj is erroneous and according to him, as on that day i.e., when M.E.No.1384 was considered in the year 1980 his application for tenancy claim in Form No.7 was pending before the Land Tribunal. Hence, he challenged the mutation entry before the Assistant Commissioner of Chikkodi in proceedings No.RTS AP 185/1983-84, which was allowed on the ground that when the application in Form No.7 is pending consideration before the Land Tribunal, the mutation should not have been effected. 11. It is this order of Land Tribunal, which was subject matter of challenge by Ganapati Vittal Biraj in W.P.No.2477/1988 on the file of this Court, where the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed his writ petition in W.P.No.2477/1988 by order dated 04.06.1990 with an observation that since there is a claim of tenancy right by Parushuram to the very same land and that the same being pending before the Tribunal, order of Assistant Commissioner to reverse the revenue entry is just and proper. 12. 12. It is stated that simultaneously an endorsement was issued by the Tahasildar on 29.10.1988 stating that there is no application registered with Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid five lands by Parushuram Laxman Biraj. That endorsement was subject matter of challenge by Parushuram Laxman Biraj in W.P.No.17749/1988 on the file of this Court which came to be disposed of by order dated 12.04.1990, where the learned Single Judge would issue mandamus to the 3rd respondent- Land Tribunal to hold an enquiry in first place to verify whether petitioner Parushuram Laxman Biraj had filed any application in Form No.7 on the file of the Land Tribunal and same shall be considered after holding an enquiry on its merit. 13. Though W.P.No.17749/1988 was disposed of by order dated 12.04.1990, the Land Tribunal which was directed to hold an enquiry did not commence the enquiry upto 20.11.1992. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted wherein certain observations are made which will be referred at later stage. 14. However, when it comes to giving a finding regarding filing of application in Form No.7 by Parushuram Laxman Biraj the Tribunal gave a finding on 04.11.2010 in holding that the proceedings before the Tribunal should continue, as if, there is an application in Form No.7 filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj on 26.08.1974. The said finding was based on two documents i.e., a xerox copy of the original application as if it was filed in the year 1974 and an acknowledgement which is issued by the office of the Tahsildar continuing filing of the applications. That order of the Tribunal dated 04.11.2010 is subject matter of W.P.No.61945/2011 on the file of this Court, which came to be disposed of by a common order dated 09.08.2012 and the same is pending consideration before this Court in W.A.No.100092/2014. 15. Thereafter, it is seen that the enquiry continued before the Land Tribunal, as if, application in Form No.7 is available. Wherein an attempt was made by Ganapati Biraj S/o.Vittal Biraj seeking to implead himself as one of the party, who is interested in the subject matter of said Form No.7 which was not considered by the Land Tribunal and rejected by order dated 17.11.2011, which order of the Land Tribunal was subject matter of challenge by Ganapati Biraj S/o.Vittal Biraj in W.P.No.67782/2011 on the file of the learned Single Judge of this Court. As stated supra, that writ petition was also considered along with other writ petitions by common order dated 09.08.2012. The said order is subject matter of challenge by the said Ganapati Biraj s/o Vittal Biraj in W.A.No.100093/2014. 16. In the meanwhile, the proceedings before the Land Tribunal continued in TMC/DEV/SR 203/Kanadal, wherein the deceased Parushuram Laxman Biraj, survived by his legal representatives as applicants in Form No.7 and Savaba represented by his legal representatives as respondents. The said proceedings was concluded by order of the Land Tribunal, Raibag, dated 01.12.2011 wherein the Tribunal considered granting of occupancy right to the legal representatives of the alleged original applicant Parushuram Laxman Biraj so far as all the five lands bearing Sy.Nos.26/1, 26/2, 26/5, 26/6 and 48/2, against which a writ petition was filed by Ganapati Biraj S/o.Vittal Biraj in W.P.No.67913/2011 in the capacity of purchaser of the said lands and as an interested person wherein his right to participate in the said proceedings was denied by the Tribunal. 17. This petition in W.P.No.67913/2011 was taken up for consideration by the learned Single Judge along with other writ petitions and were disposed of by order dated 09.08.2012 wherein the learned Single Judge interfered with the order of the Land Tribunal, so far as it pertains to the grant of land bearing Sy.Nos.26/2, 26/6 and 48/2 which were the lands belonging to Savaba and subsequently purchased by Ganapati Biraj S/o.Vittal Biraj under the registered sale deed dated 30.10.1980. So far as the other two lands namely Sy.No.26/1 and 26/5 are concerned, the grant of occupancy certificate by the Tribunal in favour of Parushuram Laxman Biraj represented by his legal representatives remained undisturbed. 18. It is against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.67931/2011 in setting aside the order of issuing occupancy certificate in favour of the legal representatives of Parushuram Laxman Biraj, which is subjected to challenge by his legal representatives in W.A.No.30937/2012 before this Court and so far as confirmation of occupancy rights with reference to land bearing Sy.No.26/1 and 26/5 belonging to Bhiva, in favour of legal representatives of Parushuram Laxman Biraj, is under challenge by Ganapati Biraj S/o Vittal Biraj, as one of the legal representatives of Bhiva, in appeal in W.A.No.30317/2013. 19. 19. At the request of the contesting parties in all these four appeals, namely the legal representatives of Parushuram Laxman Biraj who are appellants in W.A.No.30937/2012 and three appeals by common appellant Ganapati Biraj s/o Vittal in W.A.No.30317/2013, W.A.No.100092/2014 and W.A.No.100093/2014, were clubbed together and admitted for consideration before this Court. They are taken up for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.S.Kamate, learned counsel for the legal representatives of Parushuram Laxman Biraj as appellant in one of the appeals namely W.A.No.30937/2012 and as respondents in other three appeals filed by Ganapati Biraj S/o.Vittal Biraj for whom learned counsel, Sri Rajashekhar Burji, is appearing. So far as the other respondent namely State is concerned, is represented by Sri Ravi Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate. 20. When all these four appeals are taken up for final disposal, this Court directed Sri Ravi Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate to secure the original villagewise register of Form No.7 maintained in Raibag taluk which he has secured and produced before this Court. Besides that, the entire records in the proceedings bearing No.TMC/DEV/SR 203/Kanadal, on the file of the Land Tribunal, Raibag, and as well as the original file in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Chikkodi, are secured and this matter is heard in the presence of the aforesaid counsel with the original documents referred to supra and this Court would observe the following points would arise for consideration in all these four appeals: (i) Whether the five lands in question were in possession of Parushuram Laxman Biraj as protected tenant as contended by him citing M.E.No.466 dated 06.01.1951? (ii) Whether the authorities were justified in giving a finding that Parushuram Laxman Biraj had filed an application in Form No.7 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, on 26.08.1974 seeking occupancy right in respect of aforesaid five lands? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not permitting one of the appellants in these appeals namely Ganapati Biraj S/o. Vittal to participate in the proceedings registered on the presumption that there is Form No.7 filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj which is registered in TMC/DEV/SR 203/Kanadal? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in considering tenancy right in favour of Parushuram Laxman Biraj by its order dated 01.12.2011 in TMC/DEV/SR 203/Kanadal? (v) Whether the common order dated 09.08.2012 in the five writ petitions call for interference? 21. (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in considering tenancy right in favour of Parushuram Laxman Biraj by its order dated 01.12.2011 in TMC/DEV/SR 203/Kanadal? (v) Whether the common order dated 09.08.2012 in the five writ petitions call for interference? 21. Admittedly, the parties to this proceedings are members of the same family i.e., the alleged applicant- Parushuram is the son of Laxman Biraj. The fact that five lands which are subject matter of this proceedings namely Sy.Nos.26/2, 26/6 and 48/2 are the lands exclusively belonging to Savaba, elder brother of Parushuram Laxman Biraj and land bearing Sy.No.26/1 and 26/5 were belonging to Bhiva, younger brother of Parushuram Laxman Biraj, is not in dispute. As stated supra, now what is to be seen is whether Parushuram Laxman Biraj was tenant of these lands. Nodoubt, there is a document which is the year 1951 with reference to Mutation Entry No.466 which would indicate this person as protected tenant under Bombay Tenancy Act for the aforesaid lands. However, what is not seen is the subsequent revenue entry in M.E.No.588 dated 02.09.1957 where the tenancy right with reference to lands bearing Sy.Nos.26/1, 26/2, 26/5 and 26/6 is extinguished and they are registered in the names of the original owners, namely Savaba and Bhiva. 22. Admittedly, this entry which has come into place on 02.09.1957 was not challenged by Parushuram Laxman Biraj at any point of time. In the meanwhile, there is an amendment to Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which is with reference to Section 48 (1) of the said Act in authorizing the cultivators who are in possession and occupation of tenanted lands to seek occupancy right. In the light of ME No.588 out of five lands in respect of 4 lands, there was no tenancy right in favour of Parushuram Laxman Biraj from 02.09.1957 itself as discussed supra which is not challenged by him before any authority at any point of time. This is the first aspect regarding tenancy. 23. Now, what is to be seen is whether there was any tenancy claim in respect of any of the five items of the land as could be seen from Column No.12 of RTC extracts with reference to aforesaid five lands which would automatically get these lands vested to the Government pursuant to Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. In the present proceedings, there is no document on record to show that vesting has taken place. On the contrary, there is a finding by the Chairman of the Land Tribunal, in the last but one page of the order dated 01.12.2011 in TMC/DEV/SR 203/Kanadal, wherein the Chairman of the Land Tribunal, Raibag, who is Assistant Commissioner, would observe that when the said authority verified with the RTCs from 1973-1974 in the register maintained in the said office, there is no reference to the aforesaid lands being vested with the Government vide Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is needless to say from 1964 onwards with reference to all the five lands, the names of the owners is continued and not that of the tenant which is also seen in the said order. 24. In this background, now this Court will have to see whether there was application in Form No.7 filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj on 26.08.1974 or any other date. The said claim would arise only in the year 1981 after Savaba, owner of lands bearing Sy.No.26/2, 26/3 and 48/2 conveying aforesaid three lands to Ganapati Biraj S/o. Vittal under registered sale deed dated 30.10.1980 pursuant to which he gets revenue entries to aforesaid three lands in ME No.1384. It is this revenue entry which is challenged by Parushuram Laxman Biraj before the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings No.RTS AP 185/1983-84 where he would take a defence for the first time that he is applicant to aforesaid five items of lands in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights. Though, he does not furnish any document to support such a claim in the said proceedings, the said contention is accepted by the Assistant Commissioner of Chikodi in the aforesaid proceedings and he would interfere with the mutation entry in M.E.No.1384 on the premise that when there is an application pending for grant of occupancy rights, there cannot be any proceedings to challenge mutation of the said land. 25. Though, in principal, the said finding appears to be correct from the legal angle, what was not seen by the Assistant Commissioner is, whether in fact there was an application in Form No.7 filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj as on that day. However, he would state that the same is required to be decided by the Land Tribunal. 25. Though, in principal, the said finding appears to be correct from the legal angle, what was not seen by the Assistant Commissioner is, whether in fact there was an application in Form No.7 filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj as on that day. However, he would state that the same is required to be decided by the Land Tribunal. The said order is also confirmed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2477/1988 by order dated 04.06.1990. Though, the said order is not under challenge in this proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that the same is erroneous, in as much as, the learned single Judge also did not verify whether there was Form No.7 filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj as on that day. In the meanwhile, there is an endorsement issued by the Tahasildar on 29.10.1988 in stating that no application is filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj seeking occupancy rights in respect of aforesaid five items of lands. This Court is of the considered opinion that the said endorsement was issued by the Tahasildar of Raibag, after looking into the register which was maintained in his office with reference to the receipt of applications in Form No.7 filed under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 26. When the said endorsement was subjected to challenge before the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17749/1988, the learned single Judge disposed of the same by order dated 12.04.1990 directing the Land Tribunal to hold an enquiry to consider whether in fact there was Form No.7 filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj. It is seen that though the order was passed on 12.04.1990, for long time, nothing was done and it is seen that in the said order the learned single Judge had justifiably observed, in the enquiry the Land Tribunal finds that there is no application in Form No.7, need not proceed further to consider the right of the alleged tenants. It is seen that in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the authorities have not bothered to verify the original records which are maintained in the office of the Tahasildar and the Assistant Commissioner. Instead, they have accepted and relied upon two documents which are Xerox copy of the application said to have filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj on 24.08.1974 and another acknowledgement said to have been issued on 26.08.1974 which are accepted. 27. Instead, they have accepted and relied upon two documents which are Xerox copy of the application said to have filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj on 24.08.1974 and another acknowledgement said to have been issued on 26.08.1974 which are accepted. 27. When the said documents which are available in the record are seen, it is surprising as to how mindless and senseless the authorities could be, is seen. When the original of the application in Form No.7 is not seen either in the records maintained with the office of the Tahasildar and the Assistant Commissioner and also reference not being seen in the register which is maintained in the office of Tahasildar of Raibag, where every single application received in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights from the date of commencement of the amended provision to Section 48(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, coming into force in the year 1974. The Land Tribunal on the basis of these two documents which are Xerox copies and not authentic documents, proceeds to hold that the application was indeed filed by Parushuram Laxman Biraj in the year 1974 and the audacity with which they justify is on the presumption that the application if any filed might have been misplaced or lost or may not be seen by oversight. The said observation in the order of the Land Tribunal is not only erroneous but dishonest for the following reasons. 28. As stated earlier, a proceedings was ordered to be initiated by the learned single Judge of this Court in its order dated 12.04.1990 passed in W.P.No.17749/1988. When enquiry was conducted in this behalf, certain notings are there in the order sheet maintained in main proceedings bearing No.TMC/DEV/SR 203/Kanadal, which are as under: "On perusal of records of application in Form No.7 as per village Form No.7 application register, there is no such stated entry of applicant." The aforesaid endorsement would indicate that a search was made and it was found that the application as contended to be filed by the applicant was not seen. It is in this background further order was passed on 2.11.2006 which reads as under: "Acknowledgement of Form No.7 seen. Genuineness to be established." When the aforesaid order dated 02.11.2006 is seen, it is clear that the Land Tribunal did not believe the application in Form No.7 being filed. Therefore, they felt that the genuineness of the acknowledgement should be verified. Genuineness to be established." When the aforesaid order dated 02.11.2006 is seen, it is clear that the Land Tribunal did not believe the application in Form No.7 being filed. Therefore, they felt that the genuineness of the acknowledgement should be verified. Further matter was adjourned to 23.11.2016. On that day the following observation is made. "The facsimile signature present, acknowledgement number absent. Genuineness of the receipt to be enquired by checking previous office records." After looking into the specimen signature which was produced, one more observation is made on 07.12.2016 which reads as under: "Signature in the receipt checked with the Tahsildar signature in the office records of the year 1974-75. There is no similarity with those signatures of the signature on the acknowledgement. If any additional receipts produced to be considered." 29. When all these four observation in the order sheet before the Land Tribunal is looked into, it is clearly seen that during the year 2006 when the proceedings were pending before the Land Tribunal, they were not convinced that the application in Form No.7 was filed and the acknowledgement and the copy which was produced was genuine. It is seen in spite of such observation being made in the order sheet, while disposing of the proceedings initiated on the basis of the alleged Form No.7 being filed, they considered issuing occupancy rights to the applicant as stated supra. In the order dated 01.12.2011 also there is dishonesty in as much as the Chairman before passing the order would look into the register maintained under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to see whether there is any mistake and would notice that the aforesaid lands are not vested to the Government. With this, what is seen is the Land Tribunal was not able to find any documents to show that Form No.7 was filed as on 26.08.1974. They did not believe the acknowledgement which was produced by the applicant contending that he had filed the application. They doubted the genuineness of the documents. On verification of the record, they also found that there was no vesting of land as on 31.03.1974. Despite of all these lacunas being seen, the dishonest order dated 01.11.2012 came to be passed by the Land Tribunal as stated supra which was subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.67913/2011. 30. They doubted the genuineness of the documents. On verification of the record, they also found that there was no vesting of land as on 31.03.1974. Despite of all these lacunas being seen, the dishonest order dated 01.11.2012 came to be passed by the Land Tribunal as stated supra which was subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.67913/2011. 30. It is seen that when the said writ petition was taken up for consideration along with other petitions, the learned single Judge has committed serious error in not looking into all these things and not looking into the relationship between the parties and not looking into the fact that the RTC of all five lands stood in the name of its original owners namely Savaba and Bhiva and that there was no scrap of paper available on record to demonstrate filing of Form No.7 subsequent to 31.03.1974 and also to notice that there was no vesting of lands as on 31.03.1974 and proceeded to pass an erroneous order in allowing W.P.No.67913/2011 partially so far as it pertains to land of Savaba bearing Sy.Nos.26/6 and 48/2 only and committed an error in accepting tenancy rights in favour of Parushuram Laxman Biraj with reference to land bearing Sy.Nos.26/1 and 26/5 belonging to Bhiva, the younger brother of Parushuram Laxman Biraj. 31. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that not only the order of the Land Tribunal dated 01.12.2011 in TMC/DEV/SR 203/Kanadal in granting occupancy rights in favour of entire five lands in favour of Parushuram Laxman Biraj is erroneous, but also the order of learned single Judge in W.P.No.67913/2011 in allowing the petition partially and not considering the prayer of petitioner with reference to land bearing Nos.26/1 and 26/5 is also erroneous. 32. Therefore, in the aforesaid fact situation, the appeal which is filed by Ganapati Biraj in W.A.No.30317/2013 which was in challenge to the order of the learned single Judge so far as confirming occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.26/1 and 26/5 is concerned, is allowed and that order is also set aside. 32. Therefore, in the aforesaid fact situation, the appeal which is filed by Ganapati Biraj in W.A.No.30317/2013 which was in challenge to the order of the learned single Judge so far as confirming occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.26/1 and 26/5 is concerned, is allowed and that order is also set aside. While doing so, the appeal which is filed by the legal representatives of Parushuram Laxman Biraj in W.A.No.30937/2012 in challenge to the order of learned single Judge in setting aside the occupancy rights in respect of three items of lands is concerned, the said appeal is rejected and the order of learned single Judge so far as those denying occupancy rights to the alleged applicant Parushuram Laxman Biraj for three lands bearing Sy.Nos.26/2, 26/6 and 48/2 belonging to Savaba is confirmed. 33. Now, when the major portion is considered in the aforesaid two appeals, what is required to be considered in the remaining appeals is only a formality i.e., to observe whether the Land Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application filed by Ganapati Biraj who challenged the same in W.P.No.67782/2011 which is erroneously decided by the learned single Judge. Therefore, by allowing W.A.No.100093/2014, the order dated 17.11.2011 so far as it pertains to rejecting W.P.No.67782/2011 is hereby dismissed. However, the same does not call for remanding the matter to the Land Tribunal for the reason that the entire proceedings fin TMC/DEV/SR203/Kanadal, being already disposed of with the judgment rendered in W.A.No.30937/2012 and W.A.No.30317/2013, the setting aside of the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.67782/2011 is only academical. 34. Similarly, with reference to the appeal filed in W.A.No.100092/2014 which is in challenge to W.P.No.67945/2011 which was with reference to order dated 04.11.2010 of the Land Tribunal in permitting Parushuram Laxman Biraj to pursue his alleged non existing application dated 26.08.1974 also does not survive for consideration for the reason that the main proceedings being disposed of, setting aside the order passed in W.P.No.61945/2011 by allowing W.A.No.100092/2014 is again academical in nature. With such observation all these four appeals are disposed of in the following manner that the entire land bearing Sy.Nos.26/1, 26/2, 26/5, 26/6 of Kanadal village in Raibag taluk of Belagavi district were not tenanted properties from 02.09.1957, vide M.E.No.588. 35. However, with reference to Sy.No.48/2, that order is silent. With such observation all these four appeals are disposed of in the following manner that the entire land bearing Sy.Nos.26/1, 26/2, 26/5, 26/6 of Kanadal village in Raibag taluk of Belagavi district were not tenanted properties from 02.09.1957, vide M.E.No.588. 35. However, with reference to Sy.No.48/2, that order is silent. It is seen that the said survey number is entered in the name of landlord Savaba from the year 1964 which is not challenged by Parushuram Laxman Biraj or his legal representatives at any point of time. Therefore, their contention that they were tenants of the said lands as on 31.03.1974 is not considered for the reason that as on 31.03.1974, the said land along with four other lands was not vested with the Government. In addition to that, there was no application also by Parushuram Laxman Biraj seeking occupancy rights not only for this land or any other lands. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that tenancy rights could not have been considered so far as this land also. 36. However, it is seen that subsequently children of Parushuram Laxman Biraj have filed application in Form No.7A on 13.01.1999 seeking occupancy rights. In the event if there was no claim by Parushuram Laxman Biraj as applicant in Form No.7, probably the application in Form No.7A could have been considered, when Parushuram Laxman Biraj himself during his lifetime has pursued a false claim in contending that he had filed an application in Form No.7 and that being decided on merits, question of the application filed by his legal representatives in Form No.7A in the year 1999 contending that they are the tenants could not be considered by any stretch of imagination, more particularly, when the said land was already subject matter of sale by original owner in the year 1980 when there was no application in Form No.7 being pending, the finding of the learned single Judge in holding that tenancy claim could be considered in favour of Parushuram Laxman Biraj while considering W.P.No.67913/2011 is just and proper. 37. Therefore, question of considering the same in the appeal which is filed by his legal representatives in W.A.No.30937/2012 does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Parushuram Laxman Biraj in W.A.No.30937/2012 is dismissed. 37. Therefore, question of considering the same in the appeal which is filed by his legal representatives in W.A.No.30937/2012 does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Parushuram Laxman Biraj in W.A.No.30937/2012 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by Ganapati Biraj S/o.Vittal Biraj in W.A.No.30317/2013, W.A.No.100092/2014 and W.A.No.100093/2014 are hereby allowed for the aforesaid reasons. 38. In the light of the appeals being disposed of, all other applications which are pending in all the four appeals are held to have become infructuous. Registry is directed to return the original records.