JUDGMENT : D K SINGH, J. This intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1671/2017 filed by Late Narayanappa. 2. The appellants are the legal heirs /the daughters of Late Narayanappa. The writ petition was filed questioning the order dated 20.02.2004 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore in LRF No.5528/79-80. The Land Tribunal had granted the occupancy right in favour of Late Narayanappa in respect of lands in Survey Nos.30 and 31 measuring 5 acres 4 guntas and 3 acres 16 guntas, respectively, and grant of occupancy certificate in respect of Survey Nos.32 and 36 of B.M.Kaval Village had been denied. 3. Late Narayanappa had filed claim for occupancy certificates in respect of 4 survey numbers i.e. Survey Nos.30 measuring 5 acres 02 guntas, Survey No. 31 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas, Survey No.32 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas, Survey No.36 measuring 16 acres 34 guntas of B.M.Kaval Village in Form No.7. The Land Reform Tribunal did not grant occupancy right in favour of late Narayanappa in respect of land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.32 and land measuring 16 acres 34 guntas in Survey No.36. Challenging the said order of the Land Tribunal, the writ petition came to be filed by Late Narayanappa, who died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal heirs, the appellants herein were brought on record. 4. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order has held that N.Venkatesh Reddy, the son of late Narayanappa had filed his affidavit in evidence dated 02.06.2003 stating that his father had claimed occupancy rights in respect of Survey Nos.30, 31, 32 and 36. However, his father himself was actually cultivating the land in Survey No.30 measuring 5 acres 4 guntas and Survey No.31 measuring 3 acres 16 guntas. The remaining land was in possession of Sri S.N.Rajaram, the land owner. Late Narayanappa was the tenant only in respect of the land measuring 8 acres 20 guntas in Survey Nos.30 and 31. The learned Single Judge has held that the son of late Narayanappa had given up the claim in respect of land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.32 and 16 acres 34 guntas in Survey No.36. Late Narayanappa was the tenant only in respect of the land measuring 8 acres 20 guntas in Survey Nos.30 and 31. The learned Single Judge has held that the son of late Narayanappa had given up the claim in respect of land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.32 and 16 acres 34 guntas in Survey No.36. Therefore, the Land Tribunal was justified in non-granting any occupancy right in favour of the petitioner/Narayanappa in respect of the Land in Survey Nos.32 and 36 of B.M.Kaval Village and the writ petition came to be dismissed. 5. We have gone through the order of the Land Tribunal dated 20.02.2004. 6. The Land Tribunal had held that the lease hold rights were not established in respect of the claim of Narayanappa in Survey Nos.32 and 36 and they could establish that lease hold rights only in respect of Survey Nos.30 and 31, the occupancy certificate was directed to be issued in favour of the Narayanappa only for land measuring 8 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.30 (5 acres 04 guntas) and Survey No.31 (3 acres 16 guntas). 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal had only considered the affidavit of the landowner, wherein the landowner had admitted that Narayanappa was lessee in Survey Nos.30 and 31 and he was not lessee in respect of land in Survey Nos.32 and 36. On the basis of the aforesaid admission of the landlord, the occupancy certificate had been issued in favour of Narayanappa in respect of land measuring 5 acres 04 guntas in Survey No.30 and 3 acres 16 guntas in Survey No.31. 8. We have considered the record. it is not correct to say that the basis for passing the order by the Tribunal was the affidavit filed by Krishnappa. The Tribunal had considered the evidence led by the parties as well as the owners conceding the position that the lease hold rights were granted to the five appellants before the Tribunal including Narayanappa in respect of the land in Survey Nos.29, 30 and 31 and not in respect of Survey Nos.32 and 36. The Tribunal had also independently examined the record, which would be evident from the finding of the Tribunal, that reads as under: "The Land owner and the Appellants have submitted affidavits and statements stating that they are cultivating lands in all these Sy.Nos. The Tribunal had also independently examined the record, which would be evident from the finding of the Tribunal, that reads as under: "The Land owner and the Appellants have submitted affidavits and statements stating that they are cultivating lands in all these Sy.Nos. since 1970. On examination of the order dated 13-8-1986, it is found that, Smt. Susheelamma, the 3rd Appellant was conducting cultivation then and now also continuing the same in 1-00 acre of land in Sy.No.31. The Respondent has accepted that the 3 rd Appellant in Sy.No.31 and the 1 st Appellant in Sy.Nos.29, 30 and 31 are the lessees. Likewise, the Respondent has shown his acceptance that the 2, 4 and 5 th Appellants are the lessees in Sy.Nos.30 and 31. According to this acceptance, it is clear to the Land Tribunal that the Sy.Nos.29, 30 and 31 of B.M.Kaval Village were not under the custody of the land owner and they were under own cultivation of the lessees. It is clear that the Appellants 1 to 5 are the lessees in Sy.Nos.29, 30 and 31 from the prescribed date from the statement of the Respondent and the documents, pahani copies, revenue receipts and lease agreements produced by the Appellants, accounts pertaining to the cultivation and residing in the houses constructed in the said cultivating lands and also from the date of 13-8-1986 when the Land Tribunal passed the order. It is clear beyond doubt, that the land owned by the land owner in 5 Sy.Nos.29, 30 and 31 were leased and coming to a conclusion that the same Appellants (except 3 rd Appellant) were not cultivating the lands in Sy.Nos.32 and 36 is against to natural justice. Therefore, it is found that, as per the statement of the land owner, the Appellants 1, 2, 4 and 5 are not cultivating the vast lands in Sy.Nos.32 and 36 including the Respondent. Since these appellants had mentioned few additional land in their application, the land owner might have approached the Hon'ble Court on the ground that he did not know Kannada language clearly. In this case, when the Land Tribunal passed the order, it is stated in the order dated 221-2-1986 clearly that the spot inspection has been conducted in all the Sy.Nos. on 21-2-86 and it is clear that the Appellants are the lease holders in the Sy.Nos, mentioned. In this case, when the Land Tribunal passed the order, it is stated in the order dated 221-2-1986 clearly that the spot inspection has been conducted in all the Sy.Nos. on 21-2-86 and it is clear that the Appellants are the lease holders in the Sy.Nos, mentioned. Under these Circumstances, the Land Tribunal keeping in mind the relationship between the lessees and the land owner with respect to the lands in question, has unanimously decided to give lease hold rights pertaining to the specific extents in the Sy. Nos. modifying the order passed on 13-8-86. B.M. KAVAL VILLAGE Since the lease hold right is not established by the Appellants 1, 2, 4 and 5 with respect to the following Sy.No. and extents and opining that the Respondent is cultivating the land, the Land Tribunal has rejected the request of the Appellants 1, 2, 4 and 5 limiting the Sy.No. and extent shown below. Sl.No. Sy.No. Extent A.G. 1 36 29-00 2 32 8-20 Total 31-20 It is found that Form No. 10 has already been given to the Appellants from 1 to 5 after obtaining the required premium for implementing the order dated 13-8-86. Since there is difference in extents in terms of this order, taking into account the premium already paid, it is ordered to issue Form 10." 9. We, therefore, do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. The writ appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed Pending interlocutory application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of.