ORDER : Heard Sri Huleppa Heroor, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “A] Issue a writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 19-4-2011, passed by the 2nd respondent/Land Tribunal, Humnabad, in No/LR/CR-217/1975-76 dismissing the application filed in From no-7 by the petitioner, the order herewith produced as Annexure-A and be pleased to allow said Form No-7 and B] Pass an order staying the impugned order dated 19-4-2011, passed by the 2nd Respondent/Land Tribunal, Humnabad, in No/LR/CR-217/1975-76 dismissing the application filed in Form no-7 by the petitioner, the order herewith produced as Annexure-A and also restrain Respondent No-4 from alienating, encumbering or creating any third party right over the schedule land. And also restrain them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land by the petitioner and his family and C] Grant such other and further reliefs as the Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as under: The petitioner claimed that he is the tenant under Smt. Rathnamma W/o Madhappa who was cultivating the land since 1961 under ‘Kavlanama’ executed in the year 1961. On 30.12.1974, the petitioner filed form No.7 under Section 48A (1) of the Land Reforms Act, for conferment of occupancy rights over the land in Sy.No.130 measuring 12 acres 13 guntas of Changlera village, erstwhile Humnabad Taluka, Bidar District. 4. The said application was registered in LRM/Cr. 217/75-76. The occupancy rights were granted over the said land at the first instance. Sri Veerabhadreshwara temple committee being the owner of the land in question preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.8912/1976. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 08.11.1982 quashing the order granting the occupancy right in favour of the petitioner and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 5. The Tribunal subsequently, held an enquiry and decided that the petitioner is not a tenant and therefore, rejected form No.7. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 08.11.1982 quashing the order granting the occupancy right in favour of the petitioner and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 5. The Tribunal subsequently, held an enquiry and decided that the petitioner is not a tenant and therefore, rejected form No.7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition No.29586/2002 before this Court. Again this Court quashed the order of the Land Tribunal by order dated 24.07.2002 once again remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording suitable opportunity for the petitioner to produce the additional documentary evidence, if any, to establish that he was the tenant. 6. Subsequent there to, the Land reforms afforded sufficient opportunity to the parties and passed an order at Annexure – A again rejecting the form No.7 filed by the petitioner by order dated 19.04.2011 marked at Annexure– A. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has proffered the present writ petition on the following grounds: “(1) The impugned order at Annexure - A passed by the land Reforms Tribunal, dismissing the application Form No-7 filed by the Narasappa S/o Lachappa at Annexure- C is unsustainable and it is passed without following the Mandatory requirement of law. (2) The impugned order rejecting the Occupancy right in favour of the petitioner is incorrect, improper and illegal and it is not sustainable both in law and on facts. (3) The Petitioner is the tenant since 1961 under kavlanama executed in the year 1961. From 1961 to till now he is cultivating the said land. The land tribunal in its order dated 29-4-1976 after making proper enquiry granted the occupancy right in favour of the appellant here in, but the respondents here in not produced any such documents showing that the petitioner not at all in possession of the above said land or not cultivating. Hence rejecting the application of Occupancy right is bad in law. (4) The lower authority has relied upon the surmises and conjectures to reject the occupancy right of the applicant here in. There is no legally admissible or sustainable material to reject the application. (5) The ingredients of section 48A of the Act are not fulfilled in the present case. (6) The impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of justice. (4) The lower authority has relied upon the surmises and conjectures to reject the occupancy right of the applicant here in. There is no legally admissible or sustainable material to reject the application. (5) The ingredients of section 48A of the Act are not fulfilled in the present case. (6) The impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of justice. (7) When this Hon’ble High court remanded the matter to the tribunal, the tribunal must should look into the enquiry which was mad before 1976. Without looking into that enquiry just on the thought that it was remanded by this Hon'ble court passed the order against the petitioner. (8) This hon'ble court in its interim order dated 06-08-2002 grated an interim order of status quo, but the 4th respondent herein violating the order of Hon'ble High court changed the katha into their name. (9) It is submitted that from the year 1961 to 2002 the name of the petitioner was present in the R.T.C but violating the interim order of status quo in the pendency of the writ petition changing the entry in the R.T.C by the 4th respondent is bad in law.” 8. Reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, Sri Huleppa Heroor, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that forgetting the ‘Vappanda Patra’ (Kavlanama), the petitioner is a tenant and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the form No.7 vide Annexure – A resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the writ petition. 9. Per contra, Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent No.4, the Secretary, Sri Veerabhadreshwara Temple, Changlera village, Humnabad Taluka, Bidar District contended that as on the date of filing form No.7, it was the Veerabhadreshwara Temple was the owner of the land and suppressing the said fact, the petitioner has shown one Mahantappa S/o Shankreppa as the owner of the land who was no way connected with the land and managed to get an order of grant of occupancy rights over the land in Sy.No.130 for which, the temple is the owner and the said aspect of the matter when brought to the notice of this Court in W.P.No.8912/1976, this Court passed an order of grant of occupancy rights by order dated 08.11.1982 and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. 10. 10. He further contended that subsequent there to, the petitioner has failed to establish high rights under the ‘Kavlanama’ and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the form No.7 filed by the petitioner. 11. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.29586/2002 on the ground that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to produce ‘Kavlanama’ and establish his tenancy under the ‘Kavlanama’. 12. He also contended that this Court allowed the said writ petition on 24.07.2002 and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 13. He further argued that subsequent thereto, sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to establish his tenancy under Mahantappa S/o Shankreppa based on the ‘Kavlanama’ and therefore, he is entitled to get the occupancy rights in his favour. But the petitioner was not able to place any additional evidence on record establishing his tenancy and therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected the form No.7 by order dated 19.04.2011 at Annexure – A. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that from No.7 came to be filed by the petitioner showing Mahantappa S/o Shankreppa as the owner of the land in question. As on the date of filing of form No.7, it is respondent No.4, Sri Veerabhadreshwara temple was the owner of the property by virtue of sale deed executed by Smt. Rathnamma on 24.06.1968 by taking a consideration in a sum of Rs.16,000/- Earlier to Rathnamma selling away of the property, it was her husband Mahantappa was the owner of the property. Therefore, at no stretch of imagination, Mahantappa was never owner of the property. The case of the petitioner is that it is Mahantappa who was the owner of the property. When he failed to establish that he is the owner of the property and there are no revenue records in the name of Mahantappa, he came up with a contention that there was ‘Vapanda Patra’ (Kavlanama) executed by Mahantappa in favour of the petitioner on 07.04.1966. No such document was produced before the Court. When he failed to establish that he is the owner of the property and there are no revenue records in the name of Mahantappa, he came up with a contention that there was ‘Vapanda Patra’ (Kavlanama) executed by Mahantappa in favour of the petitioner on 07.04.1966. No such document was produced before the Court. When he is not able to establish that he was the tenant under Mahantappa, he also took up the contention that respondent No.4, Veerabhadreshwara temple itself has executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner on 03.12.1967. The validity of the said lease deed was also discussed in Annexure – A in detail. 15. In the first place, the said document is an unregistered document that too in Urdu language. The true translation thereof is placed before the Land Tribunal, wherein who has signed on behalf of the temple is not forthcoming so also other four signatures are not able to comprehended as it is not readable signatures. Further, admittedly, the temple became the owner of the property on 24.06.1968. If that were to be so, how the temple could have executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner on 03.12.1968 stands unexplained on behalf of the petitioner. 16. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly answered that the petitioner has not been able to establish that he is the tenant in terms of Section 2(34) of the Land Reforms Act, nor Mahantappa S/o Shankreppa could be treated as the landlord in terms of Section 2(20) of the Land Reforms Act. For ready reference, Sections 2(20) and 2(34) of the Land Reform Act culled out hereunder: “2(20) “landlord” means a person who has leased land to a tenant and includes a person entitled to receive rent from a tenant. For ready reference, Sections 2(20) and 2(34) of the Land Reform Act culled out hereunder: “2(20) “landlord” means a person who has leased land to a tenant and includes a person entitled to receive rent from a tenant. Explanation.—An intermediary such as a permanent tenant or mulgenidar, mirasi-tenant or khata kul who having taken land on lease from the land-owner has leased it to another person shall be deemed to be the landlord with reference to the person to whom the land is leased.” “2(34) “tenant” means an agriculturist [who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord and includes,— (i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4; (ii) a person who was protected from eviction from any land by the Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961; (ii-a) a person who cultivates personally any land on lease under a lease created contrary to the provisions of Section 5 and before the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. (iii) a person who is a permanent tenant; and (iv) a person who is a protected tenant. Explanation.—A person who takes up a contract to cut grass, or to gather the fruits or other produce of any land, shall not on that account only be deemed to be a tenant;” 17. On perusal of the definition of landlord and tenant as defined under Sections 2(20) and 2(34) of the Land Reform Act, it is crystal clear that Mahantappa could not be termed as the landlord as on the date of filing form No.7 nor the petitioner could be treated as a tenant under Mahantappa as is contemplated under Section 2(34) of the Land Reforms Act. 18. The petitioner has gone on changing his version so far as his tenancy is concerned. He has not been able to substantiate the contention raised by him before the Tribunal by placing the cogent and convincing material evidence on record. 19. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal after thorough analysis of the rival contentions of the parties, recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner failed to establish that he was a tenant as is contemplated under Section 2(34) of the Land Reforms Act as on the date of filing form No.7 and rightly rejected his claim. 20. 19. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal after thorough analysis of the rival contentions of the parties, recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner failed to establish that he was a tenant as is contemplated under Section 2(34) of the Land Reforms Act as on the date of filing form No.7 and rightly rejected his claim. 20. Further, the petitioner went to the extent of claiming that he is the owner of the property by way of adverse possession. The said aspect of the matter is also taken note of by the Land Tribunal and has recorded a finding that the petitioner is not been able to establish that he was a tenant as on the date of coming into force the Land Reforms Act, 1961 and therefore, his form No.7 came to be rejected. 21. This Court is unable to accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that he continued to be the tenant of the property right from 1966 though revenue records reflected his name as person who was cultivating the land for the reason that he has not been able to establish that who is the owner that who lead him into property as a tenant. 22. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the writ petition are hardly sufficient to annul the well reasoned order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure–A. 23. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. No order as to costs.