ORDER : E.S.INDIRESH, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.02.2017 in No.LRF.ATC.3583/1975-76, passed by the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition inter-alia sought for direction to grant occupancy rights in respect of subject land in favour of the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is resident of Hulimangala village, Anekal Taluk and the petitioner is cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.188/1 measuring 1 acres, 18 guntas, as a tenant under one Sri. Siddabasappa-land lord of the land in question referred to above. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk on 30.12.1976, and it is further stated that, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of petitioner as per order dated 31.10.1981 produced at Annexure-B. It is also contended that, the respondent No.4 herein has challenged the order dated 31.10.1981 before this court in W.P.No.31640 of 1981 and this court vide order dated 02.03.1983 dismissed the said writ petition as per Annexure-D to the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 has preferred LRA No.568 of 1986 before the Land Reforms Appellant Authority as the said Appellate Authority was abolished, and as such, said appeal was converted into petition in W.P.No.20781 of 1993 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 12.07.2000 (Annexure-E), wherein this court remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for re-consideration. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal recorded the statement of the parties, and passed order dated 30.11.2002 (Annexure-F), reconfirming the occupancy rights granted in the name of the petitioner. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the Thasildar has issued Form No.10 on 18.01.2003, seeking payment of premium in respect of subject land and also mutation entries were transferred into the name of the petitioner. The petitioner also produced the RTC extracts to substantiate the right in respect of subject land. 3. It is stated in the writ petition that, the original land lord-Siddabasappa died and his children along with the respondent No.4 herein have filed W.P.No.30834 of 2003 and the this court vide order dated 05.12.2011 as per Annexure-H, allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. 3. It is stated in the writ petition that, the original land lord-Siddabasappa died and his children along with the respondent No.4 herein have filed W.P.No.30834 of 2003 and the this court vide order dated 05.12.2011 as per Annexure-H, allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30834 of 2003 was challenged before the Division Bench in W.A.No.503 of 2012, and the writ appeal came to be dismissed as per order dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure-J). In that view of the matter, as the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration and the Land Tribunal has passed order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure-A), rejecting the claim made by the petitioner herein and being aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed. 4. I have heard Sri. Bhadrinath R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.P.Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Dhananjay Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel, Sri.Srikanth S., for respondent Nos. 3 (b) and (c) and 4 (a to f). 5. Sri. Bhadrinath .R., learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the operative portion of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, on 28.02.2017, and has produced the order sheet of the Land Tribunal, wherein, it is stated that, the order was pronounced on 22.02.2017, and in that view of the matter, the Land Tribunal has committed an error having not noticed the case on merits and as such, sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petitioner is in cultivation of the land in question and has produced the RTC extracts to establish that he was tenant under one Siddabasappa and therefore, as the said Siddabasappa had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 15.10.1975 and therefore, it is the principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, that the agreement holder cannot claim any right in respect of land in question either as tenant or owner and therefore, contended that, the Land Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking occupancy rights. 6. 6. Per contra, Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3(b) and (c) and respondent No.4(a) and (f) , submitted that, even if there is discrepancy insofar as date mentioned in the operative portion or in the order sheet and same is only a procedural irregularity however, same cannot be a basis to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Land Tribunal and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel by referring to the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal with regard to the admission made by the petitioner as to the cultivation of the land in question and as such, submitted that, since, the petitioner himself has admitted as per6 factual aspects on records, same cannot be interfered with by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 7. Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State has produced the original records from the Land Tribunal, Anekal Taluk, and invited the attention of the court to the cross-examination of the petitioner herein and submitted that, no interference is called for to issue the notice to the respondents this writ petition. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully perused the original records and the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner is in cultivation of the land in question for more than four decades with the landlord-Siddabasappa and also it is stated that Form No.7 is filed by the petitioner seeking occupancy rights in respect of subject land. It is not in dispute that the Land Tribunal has passed an order on two occasions and finally reached this court in W.P.No.30834 of 2003, wherein this court by order dated 05.12.2011 has allowed the writ petition filed by contenting respondents and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the finding recorded by the this court at paragraph 5 of the order passed in the said writ petition and same is extract below: "5. Apparently, in the first instance, occupancy rights were granted on the basis of statement made by petitioner No.1. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the finding recorded by the this court at paragraph 5 of the order passed in the said writ petition and same is extract below: "5. Apparently, in the first instance, occupancy rights were granted on the basis of statement made by petitioner No.1. On remand the 1 st petitioner made a statement indicating that respondent No.3 has not been cultivating the land in question. Indeed insofar as the entries are concerned, the Land Tribunal would state what the law is inasmuch as the entries in the revenue records have presumptive evidentiary value. If the other material placed before it rebuts the presumption, the Tribunal can give a finding contrary to such, entries. The Tribunal appears to have relied on the observation made by this Court in a decision reported in 1980(1) Kar.L.J. Sh.N 153 ( Chandrashekaraiah vs. Land Tribunal, Shimoga ). Indeed the Tribunal is also required to state as to what are the other materials so as to rebut the presumption, which can be raised under Section 133 of the Act. The Tribunal in one sentence has stated as follows: " Relying on the above decision and considering several facts and circumstances of the case, it is unanimously held that Shri. Doddapapaiah was cultivating the land in S.No.198/1, measuring 1A 18 gs." 9. The said order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.503 of 2012 and Division Bench of this court by order dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure-J) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of remand made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.30834 of 2012. In the backdrop of these aspects and on careful consideration of the original records, wherein, it is stated in the order sheet that the order was pronounced on 22.02.2017, however, in the impugned order, which contain the detailed consideration of the material on record, shown that the order passed has been passed on 28.02.2017. Even if there is discrepancy insofar as the mentioning the date of pronouncement of order is concerned, the same would not have any bar to change the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal, considering the oral and document evidence produced by the parties. Even if there is discrepancy insofar as the mentioning the date of pronouncement of order is concerned, the same would not have any bar to change the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal, considering the oral and document evidence produced by the parties. Even if the wrong date has been mentioned in the impugned order and same is only procedural irregularity and same cannot be a basis to the remand the matter for the 3 rd time for considering the case of the petitioner on merits. In this regard, it is relevant to mention judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandakerappa Since Deceased by LR's and Others vs. Pillamma Since Deceased by LR's and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 387 , wherein, it stated that the repeated remand cannot be made by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and the matter has to be disposed of on merits. Following the declaration of the law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal has to be considered on merits. On careful examination of the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal, supported the evidence wherein, the petitioner himself has stated that, the landlord-Siddabasappa used to come from Bangalore and in cultivation of the land and the said admission made by the petitioner is to be accepted though the RTC extracts have been produced which are presumptive value. In that view of the matter, the Land Tribunal has considered the oral and material on record and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner himself has admitted that the landlord-Siddappa was managing the affairs of the subject land which establish the fact that, the petitioner was not in cultivation the land as tenant, under Section 2 (34) of the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1961. Since this court is having limitation jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India to interfere with the order passed by the quasi -judicial authority, I am of the opinion that, no interference called for in this writ petition. In the result, the writ petition dismissed