ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging order dated 23rd January, 2013 passed by the Land Tribunal, Byadagi, in No.TEN/SR/45/KUMMUR (Annexure-E to the writ petition). 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties to the petition are referred to as per their rank before the Land Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners–Hussainmiya was owner of the land bearing Sy.No.23/1 measuring 7.01 acres of Kummur village. After the death of the father of the petitioners on 18th October, 2007, the petitioners are in cultivation of the subject land. It is further stated that, father of the petitioner never leased any land much less in favour of one Mohammed Ismailsab (father of the respondents 2 to 6). The petitioner contended that, the deceased Mohammed Ismailsab alleged to have filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of the subject land (Annexure-A). The Land Tribunal, without considering the material on record, granted occupancy rights in favour of the deceased Mohammed Ismailsab by order dated 25th October, 1977 and the same was challenged by the father of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.13969 of 1977. This Court quashed the order passed by the Land Tribunal and as such, remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal, on remand, passed the order dated 27th May, 1988, rejecting Form No.7 filed by the said Mohammed Ismailsab and the same was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.43375 of 2001 and this Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 04th January, 2005, allowed the writ petition and consequently, remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the same, the Land Tribunal without considering the observation made by this Court, passed the order dated 23rd January, 2013 and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is contrary to law and the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.43375 of 2001. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is contrary to law and the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.43375 of 2001. It is submitted that, the claimants have examined one Abdul Mazeed Amminabhavi, who claims to be the brother of the alleged tenant–Mohammed Ismailsab and further contended that, the said witness was not aware about the factual aspects and therefore, the Land Tribunal, solely based on the evidence of the said Abdul Mazeed Amminabhavi, has arrived at a conclusion by granting occupancy rights in favour of contesting respondents, which is not correct. He further contended that, though the name of the father of the contesting respondents was enumerated in the records of rights, however, there is no supporting documents incorporating the name of the father of the contesting respondents by way of mutation entries and therefore, sought for interference of this Court by relying upon the judgment of this Court in case of BHIMAPPA CHANNAPPA KAPALI AND OTHERS v. BHIMAPPA SATYAPPA KAMAGOUDA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3055. 6. Per contra, Sri. Ravi S. Balikai, learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. It is the principal submission of the Sri. Ravi S. Balikai that the father of the petitioners has made an application on 26th March, 1981 seeking compensation in respect of leasing the land in question and pursuant to the same the lease amount was released in favour of the father of the petitioners and therefore, the said aspect has been considered by the Land Tribunal while passing the impugned order and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition. In this regard, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SUNDERABAI W/O. DEVRAO DESHPANDE AND ANOTHER v. DEVAJI WHO CALLS HIMSELF AS THE ADOPTED SON OF SHANKAR DESHPANDE reported in AIR 1954 SC 82 and in the case of SHISH RAM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2000)6 SCC 84 . 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. 8. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the facts on record, which would indicate that the father of the contesting respondents–Mohammed Ismailsab filed an application in Form No.7 on 24th August, 1972 and occupancy right was conferred by the Land Tribunal on 25th October, 1977. The said order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.13969 of 1977 and this Court remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal, by order dated 27th May 1988 rejected the application made by the father of the contesting respondents herein and the same was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.43375 of 2001 and this Court by order dated 04th January, 2005, remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal to dispose of the petition in compliance of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules read with Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Pursuant to the same, the Land Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties Mohammed Isaq Amminabhavi, son of the Original tenant–Mohammed Ismailsab was examined in chief and his evidence was discarded as he was not offered for cross-examination. Thereafter, brother of the original tenant– Mohammed Ismailsab was cross-examined by the counsel representing the landlord (petitioners herein). The Land Tribunal, after considering the material on record that the father of the petitioners herein has made an application to the Land Tribunal seeking compensation on account of vesting of land with the Government as on 01st March, 1974, I have carefully examined the records made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate. Though the compensation was received by the father of the petitioners and the same was returned to the Land Tribunal and the said fact would indicate that the petitioners herein have admitted that the late Mohammed Ismailsab was a tenant and rightly conferred occupancy rights in favour of the alleged tenants/respondents herein. 9. Though the compensation was received by the father of the petitioners and the same was returned to the Land Tribunal and the said fact would indicate that the petitioners herein have admitted that the late Mohammed Ismailsab was a tenant and rightly conferred occupancy rights in favour of the alleged tenants/respondents herein. 9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in BHEEMAPPA CHANNAPPA KAPALI (supra), however, as the father of the petitioners herein made an application stating that he is the land lord of the subject land and the same was given on lease to the father of the contesting respondents, and as such, received compensation in lieu of tenanted land and the said finding would clearly establish the fact that the father of the petitioner admitted the tenancy of the father of the contesting respondents, and therefore, I am of the view that the judgments referred to by learned counsel Sri. Ravi S. Balikai would aptly apply to the facts on record and the petitioners herein are estopped from stating that the father of the contesting respondents is not a tenant of the father of the petitioners. 10. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. That apart, the judgment referred to by the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the case on hand, since the father of the petitioners admits the tenancy of the father of the respondents and therefore there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of contesting respondents. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER : Writ Petition dismissed. Registry is directed to return the original records.