JUDGMENT : D K SINGH, J. 1. The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1857 of 2008 and other connected writ petitions. 2. Before proceeding with the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be apt to take note of the relevant facts of the case. 3. One Ayyappa was the cultivator of the lands bearing Survey No.8/2 measuring an extent of 31 guntas, Survey No.49/1 measuring an extent of 1 acre 9 guntas, as also lands in question being Survey Nos.50/12 and 50/13, as a tenant . 4. In view of the provisions of Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act') the date of vesting of the lands under tenancy was vested with the Government. However, if any person claims occupancy rights, he is required to submit an application in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal as contemplated under Sections 48 and 48-A of the Act. A person claiming occupancy rights must have been in possession and cultivation of the land prior to the date of vesting i.e., 01.03.1974. Form No.7 should have been filed by the tenant on or before 31.12.1974 for claiming occupancy rights. 5. It is stated that Sri.Ayyappa, the father of the appellant and respondent No.3 died in the year 1965 and the application in Form No.7 came to be filed only on 26.12.1974. The Land Tribunal, however, granted occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question in Sy.No.50/12 measuring 34 guntas and Survey No.50/13 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas, which were in the possession and cultivation of the father of the appellant and respondent No.3-Sri.Annayyappa. According to the Tribunal, notice was issued only to respondent No.3-Sri.Annayyappa and not to the appellant herein. Under the earlier order passed by the Tribunal on 28.09.1979, the lands in question bearing Survey Nos.50/12 and 50/13, were given only to respondent No.3 - Sri.Annayyappa. The name of the appellant did not find place. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion by recording a finding that in Form No.7, only the name of respondent No.3-Sri.Annayyappa was mentioned, who was the only son of Late Sri.Ayyappa. 6. The name of the appellant did not find place. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion by recording a finding that in Form No.7, only the name of respondent No.3-Sri.Annayyappa was mentioned, who was the only son of Late Sri.Ayyappa. 6. In view of the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 20.07.2007 passed in LRF/834/74-75, 4623/74-75 & No.3080/75-76, granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3, who was the one of two sons of Late Sri.Ayyappa, in respect of the lands bearing Survey No. 50/12 measuring 34 guntas and Survey No.50/13 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas. 7. The learned Single Judge has affirmed the order passed by the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2013. It has been stated that whether the appellant, who was the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1857 of 2008, was an applicant in Form No.7 or not and whether the land was in joint cultivation while living together in the family, requires to be established by leading evidence. The petitioner i.e., the appellant herein has relied on the evidence of the first applicant i.e., respondent No.3 wherein he has deposed that after the conferment of occupancy rights, respondent No.3 would give a share in the property. This piece of evidence cannot be considered and was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge has affirmed the order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 8. It is not in dispute that Sri.Munivenkatappa and Sri.Tanappa are the sons besides the respondent No.3 of Late Sri.Ayyappa. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the third son died unmarried, leaving only two sons namely, Sri.Annayyappa-respondent No.3 and Sri.Munivenkatappa - the appellant herein as legal heirs to claim occupancy rights in respect of the lands which were under cultivation and possession of their late father. 9. Respondent No.3- Sri.Annayyappa is the eldest son. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant - Sri.Munivenkatappa and Late Tanappa, were excluded from the property of their father, although there exists an unregistered partition deed in respect of the house in Bengaluru. But in that partition deed, nothing is mentioned about the landed properties. The partition deed dated 15.10.1964 had been executed when the father of the appellant and respondent No.3 was alive, which has been placed on record and marked as Annexure-R33. But in that partition deed, nothing is mentioned about the landed properties. The partition deed dated 15.10.1964 had been executed when the father of the appellant and respondent No.3 was alive, which has been placed on record and marked as Annexure-R33. Annexure-R33 reads as under:- PARTITION "This deed of partition is made and executed on this the 15 th day of October, 1964. I Ayyappa, s/o Tayappa, aged 70 years, resident of Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South taluk is entering into this partition with my sons Annayyappa, 1 st son; Tanappa, 2 nd son; and Munivenkatappa, 3 rd son. All the 4 members of us are residing jointly. Day by day, the difference of opinion between the members of the family is increasing. We have foreseen that it may reach its worst oneday. Hence, inorder to maintain a good relation among us, we all the 4 members have entered into this partition with the same mind, partitioning the immovable property of the family,in presence of the undersigned panchayat members. The only ancestral property of our family and in possession of family is the Mangalore tiled house. Since, there is other property, the house is divided into three shares as mentioned in the schedules A, B and C to distribute among my three sons the share holders of this panchayat. Now onwards, you are to enjoy the property with you family members.' 10. When there is nothing to suggest that the two sons were excluded from the property left behind by Late Sri.Ayyappa, it does not appear that only one son would have filed the application claiming the occupancy rights over the land in question. We have perused Form No.7, which mentions Sri.Annayyappa and Sri.Munivenkatappa are the sons of Late Sri.Ayyappa. 11. We are therefore, of the view that the whole basis of the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge is incorrect. In the application, the names of the appellant - Sri.Munivenkatappa and respondent No.3- Sri.Annayyappa, are forthcoming. No evidence was led by respondent No.3 before the Tribunal to suggest that the father had given exclusive rights to him in respect of the lands in question. 12. In the application, the names of the appellant - Sri.Munivenkatappa and respondent No.3- Sri.Annayyappa, are forthcoming. No evidence was led by respondent No.3 before the Tribunal to suggest that the father had given exclusive rights to him in respect of the lands in question. 12. In view thereof, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1857 of 2008 and other connected writ petitions is wholly unsustainable and therefore, the same is set aside. We hold that the appellant- Sri.Munivenkatappa is also entitled to 50% share of the lands bearing Survey Nos.50/12 and 50/13 situated in Jakkasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. 13. In view of disposal of the appeal, the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.