JUDGMENT : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. Petitioner herein is claiming himself to be son of one Shambulingappa. According to him, his father was a tenant of land bearing Sy.No.79 of Shivara village, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District, measuring to an extent of 5 acres 30 guntas. 2. Admittedly, the land bearing Sy.No.79 is inam land of 4th respondent Sri Ranganatha Swamy Devaru Temple. With reference to said land an application in Form No.7 is filed by Shambulingappa - father of the petitioner immediately after the amended provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act coming into force, which is registered initially in No.LRF.INA.2 and 3/1979-80. In fact, there were two applicants in aforesaid LRF proceedings, first applicant was Devarajaiah Archak of 4th respondent Temple and second applicant was Shambulingappa - petitioner's father. 3. In the aforesaid LRF proceedings, the President of the Land Tribunal who is the Assistant Commissioner of Tiptur would observe that Archak Devarajaiah is not residing in the village for more than 15 years therefore, his application cannot be considered. At the same time, said Devarajaiah also conceded that he has got nothing to do with the land inspite of there being an application from him seeking occupancy right in respect of the said land. With reference to Shambulingappa's application, the President would observe that his cultivation of said land is on the basis of Panchasala guttige. Accordingly, by order dated 8.7.1981 granted occupancy right in favour of Shambulingappa in respect of the land in question. 4. Subsequently, the records would disclose that in so far as grant in favour of Shambulingappa is concerned, another proceedings is initiated before the Land Tribunal in No.LRF.INA 155/1981-82, wherein the President would observe that though Shambulingappa claims that he is cultivating the land in question since 15 years, it is noticed that the said land is inam land; in the saguvali column the name of the Temple is forthcoming from 1968-69 to 1971-72 and from 1972-73 to 1976-77 the name of Shambulingappa is seen, but for the year 1970-71 his name is not forthcoming, therefore, he is not a tenant. However, the order passed in said proceeding on 22.11.1981 would indicate that occupancy right is granted in favour of said Shambulingappa though there is dissent by the President for such grant, which was subject matter of an appeal in LRA.No.24/1987 by the Temple represented by its Darmadarshi. 5. However, the order passed in said proceeding on 22.11.1981 would indicate that occupancy right is granted in favour of said Shambulingappa though there is dissent by the President for such grant, which was subject matter of an appeal in LRA.No.24/1987 by the Temple represented by its Darmadarshi. 5. The appeal filed by the Temple before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in LRA.No.24/1987 came to be allowed by order dated 9.9.1987 in accepting that the land in question is under the cultivation of Temple and not under the cultivation of Shambulingappa. It is this order which is challenged by Shambulingappa in CRP.No.4210/1987. At the same time, there is mistake on the part of Darmadarshi of Temple in challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal in first of the LRF proceedings on 8.7.1981 once again in WP.No.22156/1990 even though the said order has already merged in the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in LRA No.24/1987. 6. When the Civil Revision Petition and Writ petition were taken up for consideration, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the same by order dated 7.6.1996 in remanding the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh Consideration. It is this remanded matter which was taken up for consideration by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru District and decided by order dated 14.12.2011 in declaring that land bearing Sy.No.79 measuring to an extent of 5 acres 30 guntas of Shivara village, Tipatur Taluk, Tumakuru Distrct, at Annexure-X, as Government land, which is impugned in this proceedings on the ground that when the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act provides for recognizing the cultivation of petitioner's father - Shambulingappa as tenant and entitling him to seek Saguvali Chit, by relying upon the circular, which is issued in imposing certain restrictions regarding tenancy right, the provisions of tenancy right provided under the Act cannot be overruled, therefore, the order impugned is passed for extraneous reasons without there being any substance in support of the same. He would further contend that there is no reason to set aside the finding of the majority members of the Tribunal in accepting Shambulingappa as a tenant. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the order impugned with reference to the material available on record. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the order impugned with reference to the material available on record. The same would indicate that the land in question was continuously under the cultivation and enjoyment of the Temple itself as could be seen from the RTC, wherein even in column No.12 name of the Temple is shown as cultivator. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assert that much earlier to 1972 the petitioner's father Shambulingappa was tenant, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same in as much as the finding of the President of the Land Tribunal in order dated 8.7.1981 is to the effect that cultivation by the petitioner's father is on the basis of Pancha sala guttige. 8. In this background, when communication/ circular of the State Government in No.RD.127.MLD.78, dated 7.11.1970 is looked in to, it would indicate that the said communication is subsequent to the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, coming in to force on 1.3.1974. This communication by the Secretariat of Government of Karnataka to the Officers of the Revenue Department is in clarifying the status of tenants on Eksal or Panchsal guttige which is particularly with reference to recognizing their right to seek occupancy right on such lands. This communication is issued in pursuance to the amended provisions which have provided the tenants to seek regularization of lands, wherein the clarification is to ensure that the persons who are in cultivation of the lands on Eksal or Panchsal guttige shall not be entitled to claim the right which is available to tenants as recognized under the Act. 9. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his father was tenant of the land in question much earlier to 1972 does not find favour with this Court to recognize him as a tenant. In fact, the President of the Tribunal after looking in to the material on record has rightly expressed his opinion that the petitioner's father cannot be accepted as tenant. Hence, giving a go-bye to said observation which is based on the material on record, does not arise. In fact, the President of the Tribunal after looking in to the material on record has rightly expressed his opinion that the petitioner's father cannot be accepted as tenant. Hence, giving a go-bye to said observation which is based on the material on record, does not arise. However, contrary to the said view of the President, the Members of the Tribunal tried to exercise their majority view in recognizing the petitioner's father as tenant, which has resulted in second order being passed in a subsequent proceedings, which is rightly set aside by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in its order dated 9.9.1987 in LRA.No.24/1987. Hence, when the said proceedings was remanded, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly rejected the application of petitioner's father, since deceased represented by the petitioner, which does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is rejected.