JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. - This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are, that the appellants claimed to be in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of land measuring 4 acres 38 guntas of Sy. No.31/1 of Obalapura village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, since 1990. The appellants made an application seeking regularization of land in their favour before the Committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation. The committee by order dated 11.01.2002 approved the grant of an extent of 2 acres 38 guntas of land. In pursuance of the order passed by the committee, the Tahsildar passed an order in favour of the appellants on 11.01.2002. 3. The aforesaid order was assailed by respondent no.4 in an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Challakere, who by an order dated 19.01.2002 inter alia held that the appellants were not in cultivation and occupation of the land in question and the same was left barren. It was further held that appellant no.1 was holding land measuring 4 acres 8 guntas in Lakshmanapally village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, and found appellants to be not entitled to the land in question. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. 4. The appellants challenged the aforesaid order in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, who by an order dated 28.09.2011 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants. The appellants challenged the said order in a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 19.08.2013. In the aforesaid factual background, this intra court appeal has been filed. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no material on record to demonstrate that appellant no.1 is the owner of land measuring 4 acres 8 guntas in Lakshmanapally village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. It is further submitted that Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the Rules') , has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation has rightly found the appellants to be entitled for regularization of the land in question. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that the committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation has rightly found the appellants to be entitled for regularization of the land in question. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 8. Admittedly, a person in order to claim regularization of land, under Rule 108-F of the Rules, is required to prove that he is in cultivation and occupation of the land in question for a period preceding three years from 14.04.1990. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner, Challakere, as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, have found that the appellants have failed to prove the fact that they were in cultivation and occupation of the land in question preceding three years from 14.04.1990. The aforesaid finding of fact is based on the material available on record. The appellants have not produced any evidence on record to prove the aforesaid fact. It is also pertinent to note that the land in question is a Government land and is required for the purpose of grazing of cattle as there is no sufficient Gomala land in the village. The Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have also recorded a finding that appellant no.1 is the owner of land measuring 4 acres 8 guntas in Lakshmanapally village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner who are the fact finding authorities on the basis of the material available on record, have adjudicated the entitlement of the appellants for regularization of the land in question and have held that the appellants are not entitled for regularization of land. The aforesaid finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. 9. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record has concluded that the appellants are not entitled for regularization of the land in question. The aforesaid finding of fact does not call for any interference in this intra court appeal. 10. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same fails and is hereby dismissed.