ORDER : E.S. INDIRESH, J. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 15 th March, 2003 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No.3 in Case No.LRF/7A(M)42,43,44/1999-2000 and order dated 13 th May, 2016 (Annexure-E) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.602/2003. 2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner No.1-Venkatamma W/o H.A. Kempaiah claims to have filed Form No.7-A seeking occupancy right in respect of land bearing Survey No.2/2B measuring 38 guntas of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanuru Taluk as per Annexure-A. However, the petitioner No.1 confined her claim to an extent of 13 guntas of land as the remaining 25 guntas of land was the subject matter before this Court in Writ Petition No.5388 of 2002. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner No.1 is a tenant under respondent No.1-Rathnamma. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.2-K. Narayana Gowda S/o H.A. Kempaiah had filed application in Form No.7-A, seeking grant of land bearing Survey No.15/2B measuring 5 acre 12 guntas of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanuru Taluk as per Annexure-B. It is also stated that the respondent No.2 is the landlord/owner of the land bearing Survey No.15/2B measuring 5 acre 12 guntas of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanur Taluk. 4. It is further stated in the writ petition that the aforementioned applications had been filed by the petitioners claiming occupancy right against two different lands in question and the respondent No.3 has erroneously clubbed the matter together and passed common order dated 15 th March, 2003 (Annexure-C) and therefore, the said aspect of the matter is to be interfered in this writ petition. It is also stated in the writ petition that, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the applications filed by the petitioners, the petitioners have preferred Appeal No.602 of 2003 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, without appreciating the material on record, had dismissed the appeal, by order dated 13 th May, 2016 (Annexure-E). Hence, the petitioners are before this Court, challenging the aforesaid orders in this writ petition. 5. Heard Nitish K.N., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, appearing for petitioners; Sri. Mohan Prasad, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Sunil Kumar Patel, appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. P. Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2(a)(i & ii) and (b to e); Sri. 5. Heard Nitish K.N., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, appearing for petitioners; Sri. Mohan Prasad, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Sunil Kumar Patel, appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. P. Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2(a)(i & ii) and (b to e); Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3. 6. Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the respondent No.3 has committed an error in clubbing two claim applications together and therefore, same is required to be interfered with in this writ petition. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the respondent No.3 has committed an error in rejecting the applications based on the proceedings, which never conducted by non quasi-judicial authorities, and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 7. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that, H.A. Kempaiah, husband of the petitioner No.1 was cultivating the land in question and on his demise, the petitioner No.1 and her children were cultivating the land in question and therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent No.3 is incorrect. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that, insofar as the land bearing Survey No.15/2B measuring 5 acre 12 guntas of Gollahalli Village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gauribidanuru Taluk, the petitioner No.2 is the tenant under the respondent No.2, who was alive at the time of completion of the proceedings, as the respondent No.2 died on 17 th July, 2010, however, the respondent No.3, by impugned order dated 15 th March, 2003 (Annexure-C) arrived at a conclusion that the respondent No.2 is no more and the said finding recorded by the respondent No.3 requires to be interfered with by this Court. 9. Learned counsel Sri. K.N. Nitish, appearing for the petitioners, by referring to the evidence of one Krishnegowda before the Land Tribunal (Annexure-H), contended that the entire proceedings have been held against the petitioners solely based on the evidence of the said Krishnegowda and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. He further contended that the entries for the relevant period have been tampered with by the respondent-Authorities and therefore, the same has to be concluded by granting occupancy right in favour of the petitioners. He further contended that the entries for the relevant period have been tampered with by the respondent-Authorities and therefore, the same has to be concluded by granting occupancy right in favour of the petitioners. Finally, it is argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had committed an error in appreciating the case of the petitioners in the right perspective and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, Sri. Mohan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 28 th March, 2006 passed in Writ petition No.5388 of 2002 and argued that this Court has dismissed the claim of the petitioner No.1 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.2/2B of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanur Taluk and therefore, argued that no interference be called for in this writ petition. 11. In respect of the land bearing Survey No.15/2B, learned counsel Sri. P. Anand, appearing for the respondents 2(a)(i & ii) and (b to e) contended that, both the Land Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner No.2 was not cultivating the land in question under the respondent No.2 and therefore, no interference be called for in respect of the finding of fact by both the Authorities. 12. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the records made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate. It is forthcoming from the records that the petitioner No.1 has filed Form No.7-A in respect of the land bearing Survey No.2/2B of Gollahalli Village, Gauribadnur Taluk to an extent of 37 guntas however, the extent of land was restricted for 13 guntas. In this regard, this Court in Writ petition No.5388 of 2002 (Annexure-R5) has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner No.1 and as such, rejected the claim of the petitioner No.1, seeking occupancy right in respect of land bearing Survey No.2/2B of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanur Taluk and same has reached finality and therefore, no interference be called for in respect of the claim of petitioners insofar as the Survey No.2/2B of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanur Taluk. 13. 13. Insofar as the claim made by the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 has filed Form No.7-A as per Annexure-B, claiming occupancy right against one late Kare Rangappa and Thimmaiah bin late Gangappa, it is also forthcoming from the perusal of Annexure-C that the respondent No.3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner No.2 on the ground that the erstwhile owner of the land bearing Survey No.15/2B of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanur Taluk, has sold an extent of one acre in favour of one H.T. Gangadharaiah S/o Thimmaiah (respondent No.2). It is the case of the respondent No.2- landlord that, the family of the respondent No.2 are cultivating the land in question and same has not been given in tenancy to anyone much less the petitioner No.2. In this backdrop of the aspect, the children of the respondent No.2 (Thimmaiah) have adduced evidence before the Land Tribunal as per Annexure-H, stating that they have purchased an extent of 1 acre out of 5 acre 12 guntas from the erstwhile owner-Kare Rangappa and after the execution of the registered Sale Deed by the said Kare Rangappa in favour of H.T. Gangadharaiah S/o Thimmaiah, the Tribunal has conducted spot inspection as per Annexure-J wherein, the petitioner No.2 is in cultivation of half of the land in question and remaining half of the extent of the land is being cultivated by the respondent No.2. It is also forthcoming from the RTC extracts produced at Annexure-L that the petitioner No.2 along with the said Gangadharaiah are in cultivation of land under the landlord-Kare Rangappa. It is to be noted that, land bearing Survey No.15/2B is cultivated by the petitioner No.2 under H.T. Gangadharaiah or Kare Rangaiah (erstwhile owner of the land) and also further perusal of the RTC extracts produced at Annexure-L would indicate that the name of the petitioner No.2 and Gangadharaiah has been shown in the cultivators column. In addition to this, the report of the Revenue Inspector submitted to the Land Tribunal would indicate that, both the petitioner No.2 and the said H.T. Gangadhariah were in cultivation of the land in question. In addition to this, the report of the Revenue Inspector submitted to the Land Tribunal would indicate that, both the petitioner No.2 and the said H.T. Gangadhariah were in cultivation of the land in question. The said aspect would makes it clear that the petitioner No.2 is in cultivation of half of the total extent claimed in the Form No.7- A. That apart, the said H.T. Gangadharaiah along with his brothers have deposed before the Land Tribunal as per Annexure-H that they are in cultivation of land in question, after the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 18 th February, 1981 and if the said statement is to be accepted, the name of the Gangadharaiah as per Annexures 'K' and 'L' is contrary to the oral evidence adduced by the H.T. Gangadharaiah and his brothers. It is also relevant to mention here that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has not considered the case of the parties on merits by looking into the original records wherein, both the petitioner No.2 and H.T. Gangadharaiah were in cultivation of the subject land equally. 14. Though the learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the legal representatives of the respondent No.2 were brought on record as legal representatives of their father-Thimmaiah and though there is a procedural irregularity in allowing the application as the said Thimmaiah was alive and died subsequently on 17 th July, 2010, and the same would not affect the rights of his children-H.T. Gangadhariah and his brothers. 15. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the respondent No.3 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, I am of the view that, no interference in this petition be called for in respect of the claim made by the petitioner No.1. Accordingly, writ petition filed by the petitioner No.1 is to be rejected in respect of claiming occupancy right on the land bearing Survey No.2/2B as the same has been concluded in Writ Petition No.5388 of 2002 (Annexure-R5). 16. Accordingly, writ petition filed by the petitioner No.1 is to be rejected in respect of claiming occupancy right on the land bearing Survey No.2/2B as the same has been concluded in Writ Petition No.5388 of 2002 (Annexure-R5). 16. Insofar as the claim made by the petitioner No.2 is concerned, taking into consideration the RTC Extracts in respect of land bearing Survey No.15/2B to an extent of 5 acre 12 guntas is concerned, both the petitioner No.2 and the respondent No.2(a)-H.T. Gangadharaiah and his brothers together are entitled for equal share and to that extent, the interference be called for in respect of case of the petitioner No.2, claiming occupancy right in respect of land bearing Survey No.15/2B. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER 1) Writ petition is allowed in-part; 2) The claim of the petitioner No.1 in respect of land bearing Survey No.2/2B of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanur Taluk is rejected; 3) The claim of the petitioner No.2 is accepted in respect of the land bearing Survey No.15/2B of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanur Taluk to an  extent of one-half share in the land in question and the remaining one-half share in the said land is to be remained with the legal representatives of the respondent No.2-H.T. Gangadharaiah and his brothers.