JUDGMENT : RAJESH RAI K, J. These Intra Court appeals are arising out of W.P No.4922/2018 c/w W.P No.52829/2017 filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions as under: " ORDER Writ Petition No.52829/2017 and W.P No.4922/2018 are accordingly dismissed, subject to the modification as stated above in respect of 04 acres 08 guntas of land in Sy.No.50 of Basavanaganguru Village.” 2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows: The father of respondents No.3 and 4 in W.A No.622/2022 namely Late Huchappa filed declaration claiming occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.50 measuring 11 acres 15 guntas of Basavanaganguru Village against Late M.D. Hayath Sab i.e. the father of the appellants in W.A No.731/2022, from whom the father of the appellant No.1 in W.A No.622/2022 purchased the land through a registered sale deed dated 04.12.1974. The Land Tribunal conducted proceedings and through an order dated 31.10.1981 conferred occupancy rights for an extent of 07 acres 07 guntas in favour of Late Huchappa. The said confirmation was questioned in WP No.3111/82 by Late S.S Kadambar i.e. the father of appellant No.1 in W.A No.622/2022. The learned Single Judge of this Court through order dated 07.10.1985 quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the claim afresh in accordance with law, in the light of certain observations made in the order. The Tribunal, through order dated 16.01.1989, once again conferred occupancy rights for an extent of 07 acres 07 guntas in favour of Late Huchappa. The said order was once again questioned by Late S.S Kadambar before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and later, the same was converted into a writ petition in W.P.No.43293/1993, and the learned Single Judge of this Court through order dated 06.02.2003 once again quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal. However, the Land Tribunal through an order dated 30.10.2017 re-conferred the occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 in W.A No.622/2022, i.e., the legal heirs of Late Huchappa for an extent of 07 acres 07 guntas and ordered to enter the name of the government in the pahani for remaining extent of 04 acres 08 guntas. 3. However, the Land Tribunal through an order dated 30.10.2017 re-conferred the occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.3 and 4 in W.A No.622/2022, i.e., the legal heirs of Late Huchappa for an extent of 07 acres 07 guntas and ordered to enter the name of the government in the pahani for remaining extent of 04 acres 08 guntas. 3. The legal heirs of Late S.S Kadambar questioned the said order dated 30.10.2017 before this Court in WP No.52829/2017. Meanwhile, the legal heirs of Late M.D Hayath Sab also preferred W.P.No.4922/2018 against the order of the Land Tribunal. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 as stated supra. The said order is challenged by the legal heirs of Late S.S Kadambar in W.A No.622/2022 and the legal heirs of Late M.D Hayath Sab in Writ Appeal No.731/2022. 4. We have heard the learned counsel, Sri. P.N Harish for the appellants and Sri. Uday Holla Learned Senior Counsel as instructed by the contesting respondents No.3 and 4 in W.A No.622/2022 and the learned counsel Sri. Prakash M.H for the appellants and Sri. P.N Harish and Sri. Uday Holla senior counsel for the contesting respondents in W.A No. 731/2022 and AGA for the Government-respondents No.1 and 2 in both the appeals and also perused the original documents and files placed before us by the Learned AGA. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A No.622/2022 is that the learned Single Judge erred in not adequately considering the case of the appellants. He contended that according to the father of respondents No. 3 and 4 i.e., Late Huchappa , he was cultivating the land in question for fifteen years as on date of filing the Form 7 dated 19.06.1976 under Late M.D Hayath Sab i.e., the original landlord. However, it is an undisputed fact that Late M.D Hayath Sab purchased the land from one Basappa in the year 1968, through sale deed dated 18.01.1968. Such being the case, the tenant claiming to have cultivated the land for the last fifteen years is nothing but an abject falsehood. 6. However, it is an undisputed fact that Late M.D Hayath Sab purchased the land from one Basappa in the year 1968, through sale deed dated 18.01.1968. Such being the case, the tenant claiming to have cultivated the land for the last fifteen years is nothing but an abject falsehood. 6. He further contended that Late Huchappa, the alleged tenant categorically deposed before the Land Tribunal on 09.08.1977 that he discontinued cultivating the land for the last three years, also that he has not visited the land for the last 3-4 years and the land in question was not in his possession. This clarifies the position that he was neither in actual possession nor was cultivating the land in question as on 01.03.1974. 7. Additionally, he contended that the learned Single Judge of this Court erred in holding that as the land in question was tenanted land Late M.D. Hayath Sab could not have conveyed any title in favour of father of the appellant No.1. There cannot be any vesting of the land merely owing to an illegal entry in the revenue records. Ultimately, if the claim of tenancy is rejected, there will not be any vesting of the land. Further it has been categorically admitted by tenant-Late Huchappa that, the village panchayath chairman at that time namely Hanumanthappa was his friend and an inference ought to have been taken that with the aid of such persons, the revenue entries have been created. With these submissions he prays to allow the appeal. 8. The learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents No.3 and 4 contended that, this was the fourth round of litigation before this Court and the Land Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights in favour of Late Huchappa based on RTC entries of the years 1969-74 i.e. as on the cut off date of 01.03.1974. Further, by emphasizing the evidence of the landlord, Late M.D Hayath Sab before the Tribunal that he was unaware as to how Late Huchappa’s name was being reflected in the RTC, he submitted that this aspect clearly indicates that the landlord was aware of the fact that the revenue entries stood in the name of Late Huchappa. Moreover, the RTC of the years 1969-74 indicates that Late Huchappa was cultivating The land as a tenant. Moreover, the RTC of the years 1969-74 indicates that Late Huchappa was cultivating The land as a tenant. He further submitted that, after the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, as substituted vide order dated 01.03.1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) coming into force, the landlord sold the property in favour of Late S.S Kadambar. As per Sub-Section 2(a) of Section 44 of the 'Act’, the tenanted land stood vested with the state, free from all encumbrances. In such circumstances, the landlord, Late M.D Hayath Sab, could not have conveyed any title in favour of Late S.S Kadambar. Finally, he contended that, albeit after the purchase of the land in question by Late S.S Kadambar who though sought for change of mutation entries on the basis of sale deed dated 04.12.1994, the Tahsildar rejected his claim on the ground that the land was a tenanted land. However, the said rejection was not challenged by him. Against this backdrop, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petitions. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ appeal[s]. Further, while buttressing his arguments, he relied on the following judgments: i. Narayana Gowda v. Girijamma and Another (ILR 1976 KAR 1366); ii. Veerabhadraiah v. The Land Tribunal, Madhugiri and Others reported in 2004 SCC OnLine Kar 380. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants in W.A No.731/2022contended that the application of the law into the facts of the case was improperly done collectively by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. It is the consistent finding since 1981 that the sale deed was not valid and hit by embargo under Section 44(2)(a) of the 'Act'. Meaning, no rights would accrue in favour of either the original purchaser or respondents No.5 to 7, his legal representatives. Based on enquiry, the Tribunal concluded that the tenant was merely in occupation to an extent of 07 acre 07 guntas. In such circumstances, as per the embargo in the provision under Section 44(2)(a) of the 'Act' the remaining extent of the land has to be conferred in favour of the owner of the said land, since by all probability remaining extent of 04 acre 08 guntas along with the kharab land measuring 28 guntas should have been restored in favour of the appellants. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ appeal[s]. 10. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ appeal[s]. 10. The learned AGA placing the original records before us supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Land Tribunal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on comprehensive perusal of the records the points that surfaced for our consideration are that: i. Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in upholding the order passed by the Land Tribunal by conferring occupancy rights with respect to Sy.No.50 measuring 07 acres 07 guntas situated at Basavanaganguru Village? ii. Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in quashing the order of Tahsildar in so far as it relates to directing the entry of government with respect to 04 acres 08 guntas in Sy.No.50 by holding that the purchaser i.e. the appellants in W.A No.622/2022 are entitled for the same? 12. We have carefully perused the order passed by the Land Tribunal and the order passed in the impugned writ petitions. It could be gathered from the records that the pahani/RTC of the land bearing Sy.No.50 of Basavanaganguru village from the year 1969- 74, in column No.9 and column No.12/2 the names of Late M.D Hayath Sab and Late Huchappa were being reflected respectively. Late M.D Hayath Sab executed a sale deed with respect to entire extent of 11 acres 15 guntas of land in bearing Sy.No.50 on 04.12.1974 in favour of Late S.S Kadambar. It is pertinent to note here that the Land Reforms Act, 1974 in Karnataka was a significant amendment to the original Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961 which came into force from 01.03.1974. The original records produced by the learned AGA reveals that, Late Huchappa filed Form-7 with respect to the said land on 19.06.1976 seeking occupancy rights by claiming that he was the tenant in possession and was cultivating the said land for the last 15 years. Albeit corrections were carried out in the original application with regard to the year of cultivation, however, it could be established that he was the tenant in possession of the said land regardless of the period, either be it for 10 years or 15 years. Further, the original landlord Late M.D Hayath Sab deposed in his evidence before the Land Tribunal stating, he was unaware as to how Late Huchappa ’s name was being reflected in the pahani. Further, the original landlord Late M.D Hayath Sab deposed in his evidence before the Land Tribunal stating, he was unaware as to how Late Huchappa ’s name was being reflected in the pahani. Admittedly, the pahanis of the years 1969-1974 stands in the name of Late Huchappa as a tenant under Late M.D Hayath Sab. However, from the evidence of the landlord it is clear that he was aware of the pahani entries in the name of Late Huchappa. Further, the landlord failed to challenge the same before appropriate authority. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case Narayana Gowda as referred supra, held that the entries in RTCs shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved and also held that the order passed by the Land Tribunal without reference to RTC shall be presumed as bad in law. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, before the Land Tribunal, the tenant, Late Huchappa categorically admitted that he had not been cultivating the said land for 3 years prior to his evidence before the Land Tribunal i.e. on 09.08.1977. Hypothetically, even on admitting the said evidence for the sake of argument, then also, it could be construed that he was cultivating the land as on 01.03.1974. The entries of the RTCs for the relevant period reflect that he was cultivating wheat and paddy. Against this backdrop, we are unable to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.622/2022 that Late Huchappa was not a tenant of the land in question under the original landlord. 13. The next question arising for our consideration is whether the sale deed executed by the original landlord Late M.D Hayath Sab in favour of Late S.S Kadambar in the year 1974 with respect to the tenanted land confers good title to the purchaser? Ahead of delving into this facet, it is essential to examine the provisions of Section 44 and Sub Section 2(a) of the 'Act', " 44 . Vesting of lands in the State Government (1) XXXX (2) Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any Court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law 68 Land Reforms [1962: KAR. Vesting of lands in the State Government (1) XXXX (2) Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any Court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law 68 Land Reforms [1962: KAR. ACT 10 for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely:— (a) all rights, title and interest vesting in the owners of such lands and other persons interested in such lands shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances." 14. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed by the original landlord-Late M.D Hayath Sab to Late S.S Kadambar on 04.12.1974 i.e., after the 'Act’ coming into force. In view of the sub-section 2(a) of Section 44 of the 'Act’ as stated supra, after commencement of the 'Act' the tenanted lands stood vested with the government free from all encumbrances. Such being the position, the Land Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have rightly held that the sale deed executed by the original landlord in favour of Late S.S Kadambar is a violation of the 'Act’ and the landlord could not have conveyed any title in favour of the purchaser. 15. Finally addressing the contentions raised by the appellants in WA No.731/2022, the Land Tribunal after thorough consideration of evidence, spot inspection, surveyor’s report and on perusal of the documents made available before it held that the tenant, Late Huchappa, was in possession and was cultivating an extent of 07 acre 07 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.50 and rejected his claim with respect to the remaining extent of 04 acres 08 guntas of the said land. Interestingly, Late M.D Hayath Sab failed to challenge the said order. The Land Tribunal further opined that, the remaining extent 04 acres 08 guntas of the land might be in possession of Late S.S Kadambar i.e., the purchaser and that he has also received compensation for 02 acres of land acquired out of the land in question. Interestingly, Late M.D Hayath Sab failed to challenge the said order. The Land Tribunal further opined that, the remaining extent 04 acres 08 guntas of the land might be in possession of Late S.S Kadambar i.e., the purchaser and that he has also received compensation for 02 acres of land acquired out of the land in question. In such circumstances, we find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A No.731/2022 that, the remaining extent of 04 acres 08 guntas along with kharab land should have been restored in the name of the legal heirs of the original landlord i.e. Late M.D Hayath Sab. Per contra, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed an order holding that the purchaser, Late S.S Kadambar was entitled for the remaining 04 acres 08 guntas of land in view of the Land Tribunal findings as stated supra. The learned Single Judge has also rightly quashed the portion of the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal directing to enter government’s name in the pahani with respect to 04 acres 08 guntas of land. 16. For the reasons stated hitherto, we answer the points No.1 and 2 raised above in affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER : The Writ Appeals are dismissed. Pending interlocutory application[s], if any, stands disposed of.