ORDER : (E.S. INDIRESH, J.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 07 th October, 2016 (Annexure-P) and Rectification order dated 14 th October, 2016 (Annexure-Q) passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Doddaballapura Taluk in Case No.LRF:319/1974-75. 2. The facts in nutshell as averred in the petition are that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.14/1 of Dhargapura Village, Doddaballapura Taluk measuring to an extent of 2 acres and in this regard RTC extracts are produced at Annexures A1 to A10. The petitioner and his father Chandram Bhatta had mortgaged the scheduled land in favour of H. Muniyappa Reddy as per registered Mortgage deed dated 03 rd August, 1965 (Annexure-B). The father of the petitioner Chandram Bhatta died during the year- 1980. It is also stated in the petition that the mortgagee-H. Muniyappa Reddy and his brothers partitioned their joint family properties as per registered partition deed dated 06 th March, 1970 (Annexure-C) and the scheduled land was included in the partition Deed. The Schedule land was allotted to the share of H. Anjanappa Reddy, who is the brother of said H. Muniyappa Reddy. Thereafter, the said H. Anjanappa Reddy and his children got partitioned their shares in the joint family as per registered partition deed dated 12 th June, 1972 and the schedule land was allotted in favour of A. Narayanareddy and same is reflected in the RTC extracts. 3. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioner herein had instituted Original Suit No.52 of 2000 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Doddaballapura seeking decree of redemption of mortgage and the said suit came to be decreed on 21 st July, 2008 (Annexure-F1). Thereafter, respondent No.3-A. Narayana Reddy filed Regular Appeal No.52 of 2008 before the First Appellate Court and the said appeal came to be allowed as per judgment and decree dated 07 th November, 2009 (Annexure-G1) and the matter was remanded to Trial Court for fresh disposal. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has preferred Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.10 of 2010 before this Court, and this Court, by order dated 26 th November, 2013 (Annexure-H), allowed the appeal and directed the First Appellate Court to adjudicate the Regular Appeal No.52 of 2008 on merits. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has preferred Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.10 of 2010 before this Court, and this Court, by order dated 26 th November, 2013 (Annexure-H), allowed the appeal and directed the First Appellate Court to adjudicate the Regular Appeal No.52 of 2008 on merits. After the remand made by this Court, the respondent No.3-A. Narayana Reddy died and steps were not taken and as such, the appeal was dismissed as abated on 18 th August, 2014 (Annexure-J). Hence, the judgment and decree dated 21 st July, 2008 (Annexure-F1) passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.52 of 2000 has attained finality. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed F.D.P. No.11 of 2008, seeking redemption of the mortgage and accordingly, sought for appointment of Court Commissioner to execute a redemption deed. In the meanwhile the deceased respondent No.3 filed application seeking occupancy right in respect of the subject land in Case No.LRF:319/1974-75 and the respondent No.2- Land Tribunal has erroneously granted occupancy right in favour of the respondent No.3 as per order dated 27 th January, 1976 and same was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.23112 of 2000. This Court, by order dated 03 rd September, 2007 (Annexure-L), quashed the order dated 27 th January, 1976 passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. After remand, two daughters of the deceased respondent No.3 came on record and prosecuted the case before the Land Tribunal. 4. It is also stated that in the petition that, one of the daughters of the deceased respondent No.3 i.e., respondent No.3(b) represented her father as power of attorney holder in Original Suit No.52 of 2000. The deposition of the respondent No.3(b) in Original Suit No.52 of 2000 is produced at Annexure-N. It is the case of the petitioner that, in view of the existence of the mortgage deed as stated above, the Land Tribunal has committed an error in granting occupancy right in favour of the daughters of A. Narayana Reddy as per impugned order dated 07 th October, 2016 (Annexure-P) and rectification order dated 14 th October, 2016 (Annexure-Q). Hence, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Rajesh Gowda, appearing for the petitioner; Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Rajesh Gowda, appearing for the petitioner; Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3(a), 3(b)(i) and 3(b)(ii). 6. Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, there is no dispute with regard to execution of the registered mortgage deed dated 03 rd August, 1965 by the petitioner and his father in favour of H. Muniyappa Reddy, who is ancestor of the respondent No.3. The said registration of mortgage was reflected in the partition deeds executed between the joint family members. The land in question was never tenanted in favour of the ancestors of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3(b) has admitted in her evidence in Original Suit No.52 of 2000 regarding the mortgage transaction and in that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal in the impugned order dated 07 th October, 2016 (Annexure-P), granting occupancy right in favour of the respondent No.3 is contrary to law. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel sought for interference of this Court. 7. In order to buttress his arguments, Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of THIMMAIAH AND OTHERS vs. SMT. KHATUMBI AND OTHER reported in 1987 SCC OnLine KAR 89 and in the case of SRI. NI PRA CHANNABASAVA DESHIKENDRA SWAMIGALU AND ANOTHER vs. C.P. KAVEERAMMA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2009 KAR 4429. 8. Per contra, Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3(a), 3(b)(i) and 3(b)(ii) submitted that, A. Narayana Reddy had filed Form No.7 in respect of the subject land claiming occupancy right as he was cultivating the land in question as tenant. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal by producing the original records secured from the Land Tribunal. 10. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner and his father have mortgaged the land in question in favour of H. Muniyappa Reddy as per registered mortgage deed dated 03 rd August, 1965 (Annexure-B). 10. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner and his father have mortgaged the land in question in favour of H. Muniyappa Reddy as per registered mortgage deed dated 03 rd August, 1965 (Annexure-B). The said aspect is reflected in the registered partition deed dated 06 th March, 1970 (Annexure-C) executed between the joint family of H. Muniyappa Reddy and his brothers. It is also not in dispute that the said aspect was reflected in the registered partition deed dated 12 th June, 1972 (Annexure-D). It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 21 st July, 2008 (Annexure-F1) passed in Original Suit No.52 of 2000, decreed for executing the deed of redemption in favour of the petitioner. The said judgment and decree has reached finality in view of the order dated 26 th November, 2013 (Annexure-H) passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.10 of 2010. The proceedings in Regular Appeal No.52 of 2008 came to be abated and in F.D.P. No.11/2008 (Annexure-K), the petitioner has sought for execution of redemption deed by the Court Commissioner. In that view of the matter, there is no dispute that the land in question was handed over to the H. Muniyappa Reddy, who is the ancestors of the private respondents as per mortgage deed and not as tenant. In view of the same, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THIMMAIAH (supra) at paragraph 4 and 10 held as follows: "4. In view of the same, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THIMMAIAH (supra) at paragraph 4 and 10 held as follows: "4. In order to appreciate the first contention of the appellants it is necessary to set-out Section 4 of the Act, which reads: "4-PERSONS TO BE DEEMED TENANTS-A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not- (a) a member of the owner''s family, or (b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages payable in cash or kind but not in crop share cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner or any member of the owner''s family, or (c) a mortgagee in possession: Provided that if upon an application made by the owner within one year from the appointed day, (i) if the Tribunal declares that such person is not a tenant and its decision is not reversed on appeal, or (ii) the Tribunal refuses to make such declaration but its decision is reversed on appeal. Such person shall not be deemed to be a tenant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that paragraph 17 of the judgement of the Supreme Court indicates that this case also would be similar to the one coming under Section 2A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939. We are unable to agree for the reason that what would be the effect of Section 4 of the BT & AL Act which incorporated ''Mortgagees'' as the third exception to the fiction of deemed tenancy had been clearly and expressly stated by the Supreme Court at paragraph 8, extracted above and Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is identically worded. The appellants therefore cannot claim to be deemed tenants as they being mortgagees fall under one of the excepted categories. Therefore, we find no substance in the first contention of the appellants." 11. The Division Bench of this Court in SRI. NI PRA CHANNABASAVA DESHIKENDRA SWAMIGALU (supra) at paragraph 2 held as follows: "2. Basically, the question which arise for our consideration in these appeals is the application of Sections 41 and 130 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to the facts of this case. The Division Bench of this Court in SRI. NI PRA CHANNABASAVA DESHIKENDRA SWAMIGALU (supra) at paragraph 2 held as follows: "2. Basically, the question which arise for our consideration in these appeals is the application of Sections 41 and 130 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to the facts of this case. In other words, whether the application filed in Form No.5 by the appellants for recovery of possession for the respondents is maintainable. If it is maintainable, whether the order passed by the Tahsildar is in accordance with law. Whether the Learned Single Judge was right in setting aside the order and remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. In order to decide these two questions, it is necessary to set out in brief the facts leading to these proceedings." 12. In that view of the matter, since the land in question has been mortgaged as per registered mortgage deed dated 03 rd August, 1965 and same is admitted in Original Suit No.52 of 2000 by the respondent No.3(b), the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal that the land in question is tenanted land, is contrary to records and same has to be set-aside in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of THIMMAIAH (supra). Even, if the arguments of Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3(a), 3(b)(i) and 3(b)(ii) is accepted as to filing of Form No.7 by H. Muniyappa Reddy and same is to be ignored as the said H. Muniyappa Reddy was mortgagee under the registered mortgage deed dated 03 rd August, 1965. Therefore, I pass the following: ORDER 1) Writ Petition is allowed; 2) Order dated 07 th October, 2016 (Annexure-P) and order dated 14 th October, 2016 (Annexure-Q) passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal in Case No.LRF:319/1974-75 are hereby set-aside.