ORDER : ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J. Writ Petition No.63771/2012 is filed assailing the order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Land Tribunal, Chikkodi. 2. In terms of the said order, the application filed by father of respondent No.3 viz., Dattu Naik Mallade is allowed and occupancy is granted in respect of Sy.No.75/2 measuring 7 acres 8 guntas and Sy.No.76/2 measuring 7 acres 19 guntas in Yamagarni Village, Taluk Chikkodi. 3. The landlords have filed the present petition on the premise that the Tribunal could not have granted occupancy right in favour of Form No.7 to the applicant as immediately before 01.03.1974, the applicant was not lawfully cultivating the property as a tenant and was not eligible for grant of occupancy right. 2. Writ Petition No.63497/2012 is filed by legal representatives of deceased Shankar Hindurao Ghorpade. It is stated that Shankar Hindurao Ghorpade had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy right in respect of Survey No.76/2 of Yamagarni Village, Taluk Chikkodi. The applicant - Shankar Hindurao Ghorpade claimed that he is a tenant under Appusaheb Gurulingappa Honashetti of Nipani since 1950-1951. 3. Writ Petition No.83970/2013 is filed by the legal representatives of Kashibai alias Annapurna Vishwanath Jyothi, assailing the very same order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the land Tribunal granting occupancy right. The said Kashibai was respondent no.7 before the Land Tribunal. Kashibai also claimed to be the landlord in respect of both the properties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner’s landlords in Writ Petition No.63771/2012 would urge that the evidence was led before the Land Tribunal and the tenant in the cross examination held on 17.10.1981 has made a statement that the petition lands were in possession of Satlinga Honashetti 12 years prior to the said date. Satlinga Honashetti is the father of petitioner No.4. It is his further submission that initially occupancy right was granted to the extent of 1/4 share to the applicant. Later, the order was called in question. This Court has set aside the said order and remanded the matter. After remand ¼ share was granted to the applicant. Said order was again called in question. Then after one more remand, the impugned order is passed granting occupancy in respect of entire properties. 5. Later, the order was called in question. This Court has set aside the said order and remanded the matter. After remand ¼ share was granted to the applicant. Said order was again called in question. Then after one more remand, the impugned order is passed granting occupancy in respect of entire properties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.63771/2012 would also urge that the Tribunal has ignored the vital admission which would establish that immediately before 01.03.1974, the applicant was not in possession of the property as a tenant and he was not lawfully cultivating the property as a tenant, as such he was not entitled for grant of occupancy right. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that assuming that at one point of time the applicant's father was a tenant in respect of aforementioned two properties, his father surrendered the said property to the landlord, as such, the relationship of landlord and tenant has come to an end and that being the position occupancy right could not have been granted. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 83970/2013 would also adopt the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in 63771/2012 and would urge to set aside the impugned orders. In addition, learned counsel for the legal representatives of Kashibai would also urge that Kashibhai died on 05.09.2002 and her legal representatives were not brought on record, and the Tribunal passed the impugned order against the dead person. 8. It is an admitted fact that Kashibai is the daughter of Appasaheb and petitioners 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 63771/2012 are the descendants of said Appasaheb. It is noticed that all the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 63771/2012 and Writ Petition No. 83970/2013 are descendants of Gurulingappa. It is also noticed that there is no conflict of claim among the descendants of Gurulingappa. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 63497/2012 would contend that Form No.7 application filed by the petitioner's father ought to have been allowed as tenancy is very much established from the evidence led before the Court. It is his further contention that occupancy right could not have been granted in its entirety in favour of the father of respondent No.3 – Dattu Naik Mallade. 10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 11. It is his further contention that occupancy right could not have been granted in its entirety in favour of the father of respondent No.3 – Dattu Naik Mallade. 10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 11. The Tribunal based on the records has come to the conclusion that Dattu Naik Mallade was in possession of the properties as his name was appearing in Column No.12 of the RTC in respect of both properties bearing Survey No. 75/2 measuring 7 acres 8 guntas and Survey No. 76/2 measuring 7 acre 19 guntas. 12. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the appellants/landlords have failed to establish that Dattu Naik Mallade was not the tenant. In addition to that, the Tribunal has also considered the application filed by remaining applicants to conclude that no records are produced to hold that the said applicants were lawfully cultivating the property as tenants immediately before 01.03.1974. 13. The record of right pertaining to the properties would reveal that Dattu Naik Mallade was in possession of the properties as a tenant immediately before 01.03.1974. 14. Learned counsel for the landlords laid emphasis is laid on the alleged admission by the tenant who has stated in one sentence as under: This statement is recorded on 17.10.1981. By reckoning 12 years from 17.10.1981, it is urged that from 1969 the tenant were not in possession. 15. The question is whether the Form No.7 applicant was in possession of the property as a tenant immediately before 01.03.1974. 16. It is to be noticed that the status of applicant's father Dattu Naik Mallade as a tenant is not disputed in the cross examination. From the contentions raised it appears that the landlords have taken a contention that the tenant has surrendered the tenancy and handed over the possession of the properties to the landlord. Based on this contention, it is urged that as on 01.03.1974, the tenant was not lawfully cultivating the properties. 17. Since the tenancy of applicant’s father Dattu Naik Mallade is admitted at one point of time, the question is whether Dattu Naik Mallade has surrendered the tenancy in the manner provided under law. 18. Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’) as it stood before the amendment of 1974, reads as under: “25. 17. Since the tenancy of applicant’s father Dattu Naik Mallade is admitted at one point of time, the question is whether Dattu Naik Mallade has surrendered the tenancy in the manner provided under law. 18. Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’) as it stood before the amendment of 1974, reads as under: “25. Surrender of land by tenant.- (1) No tenant shall surrender any land held by him as such, and no landlord shall enter upon the land surrendered by the tenant, without the previous permission in writing of the Tribunal. (2) Permission under sub-section (1) shall be granted if, after making such inquiry as may be prescribed, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed surrender is bona fide and the land surrendered does not exceed the extent of land which the landlord could have resumed from his tenant under Section 14; in other cases, the permission shall be refused. (3) Where permission is refused in any case, and the tenant gives a declaration in writing relinquishing his rights in the land, such land shall be deemed to be surplus land and the provisions of Sections 65 to 79 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such land as if such land were surplus land in excess of the ceiling laid down in Section 63 or Section 64.” 19. From the reading of said provision it is apparent that there is a prohibition for the tenant to surrender the land held by him and there is also a prohibition to the landlord to accept the tenancy surrendered by the landlord unless, such surrender is permitted by the Land Tribunal. 20. It is also noticed that before granting permission to surrender the land, the application has to be filed before the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has to make enquiry and has to ascertain that the surrender is bonafide and it should also ascertain that surrender does not exceed the extent of land which the landlord can resume from the tenant under Section 14. 21. In addition to that sub-section 3 of Section 25 would also provide that in case the permission is refused then the tenant has to furnish a declaration that the land is surplus and in that event the land would be surrendered to the Government by applying provisions of Sections 65 to 79 of the Act, 1961. 22. 21. In addition to that sub-section 3 of Section 25 would also provide that in case the permission is refused then the tenant has to furnish a declaration that the land is surplus and in that event the land would be surrendered to the Government by applying provisions of Sections 65 to 79 of the Act, 1961. 22. Admittedly, no document is produced to hold that the procedure contemplated under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as it stood prior to the amendment of 01.03.1974 is complied with. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Venkatramanappa vs. B.N. Narasimhachar and Another, (2000) 4 KarLJ 307 , has held that even in case the surrender is through a registered document, such surrender is not valid unless, the procedure contemplated under Section 25 is followed. This being the position this Court has to hold that the alleged surrender pleaded by the landlord has not taken place. 23. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 83970/2013 would contend that one of the landlords viz., Kashibai had died before the proceeding commenced before the Land Tribunal, it is to be noticed that the descendants of the propositus Gurulingappa jointly contested the proceeding before the Tribunal. It is not the case of the petitioners that remaining landlords colluded with the tenants and did not contest the matter effectively. It is further noticed that when the enquiry was held on earlier occasion, Kashibai was alive and remaining landlords contested the matter so also, Kashibai. After the remand, there was no fresh evidence led by the parties. The parties contested the matter based on the evidence that was led when Kashibai was alive. 24. Since the legal representatives do not allege any collusion between the Form No.7 applicant and the remaining legal representatives of the landlord, the Court is of the view that no prejudice is caused to the descendants of Kashibai for not substituting the legal representatives of Kashibhai. 25. W.P.No.63497/2012 is filed by the petitioners who claim to be the tenants in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.76/2 referred to above. The application filed by Shankar Hindurao, the father of the petitioners, is rejected on the premise that there are no records to show that he was in possession of the property immediately before 01.03.1974. 26. 25. W.P.No.63497/2012 is filed by the petitioners who claim to be the tenants in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.76/2 referred to above. The application filed by Shankar Hindurao, the father of the petitioners, is rejected on the premise that there are no records to show that he was in possession of the property immediately before 01.03.1974. 26. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.63497/2012 would contend that in respect of the aforementioned property measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, there was a suit for injunction between the rival claimants and also the owner. 27. In the said suit, the owner has admitted that the petitioners’ father was in possession of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.76/2 which is middle 1/3 rd portion. It is further submitted that the suit O.S.No.283/1970 on the file of Principal Munsiff, Chikodi is decreed. Another suit filed by the rival tenants in respect of entire Sy.No.76/2 is decreed in part excluding the portion in which the decree is passed in O.S.No.283/1970. Thus, he would urge that the possession of the petitioners’ father is very much established and the Tribunal could not have granted occupancy right in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas in respect of in Sy.No.76/2. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.63497/2012 would also urge that petitioners’ father’s name appeared in the property records in 1964-65. Later, it disappeared without there being any valid order of surrender. 29. The Tribunal has held that the landlords have not produced any records to show that there is no tenancy in respect of the petition properties as against the entry in the property records in the name of Dattu Naik Mallade. The Tribunal has noted that the record of right stands in the name of Dattu Naik Mallade. The finding is based on the evidence on record. 30. The Tribunal has not noticed the decree for injunction granted in favour of Shankar, one of the applicants in respect of Sy.No.76/2 to the extent of 2 acres 20 guntas. Thus, the order of the Land Tribunal to that extent is erroneous. Decree for injunction would establish the lawful possession. The record of right in 1964-65 would also reveal that Shankar Hindurao was in possession of the property as a tenant. There is no record to show that the tenancy is surrendered. 31. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition No.63771/2012 is dismissed ii. Decree for injunction would establish the lawful possession. The record of right in 1964-65 would also reveal that Shankar Hindurao was in possession of the property as a tenant. There is no record to show that the tenancy is surrendered. 31. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition No.63771/2012 is dismissed ii. Writ Petition No.63497/2012 is allowed in part iii. Writ Petition No.83970/2013 is dismissed. iv. The grant of occupancy in favour of father of respondent No.3 is confined only to the extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.76/2 which is the middle portion in which Shankar's legal representatives are in possession. v. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal only for the purpose of granting occupancy right to petitioners in W.P.No.63497/2012 to the extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in the middle portion of Sy.No.76/2 referred to above. vi. The Tribunal shall issue Form No.10 in favour of petitioners in W.P.No.63497/2012 to the extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.76/2 referred to above.