( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying to quash the order passed by respondent 1 rejecting Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2 and 4 and the learned Counsel for respondent 3.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed Form No. 7. That Form No. 7 came to be rejected by respondent 1 by the impugned order. It is this order that is challenged in this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that not only the father of the petitioner but also the petitioner was the tenant of the suit land and though the petitioner's father had surrendered the land before the Land Tribunal at Khanapur in the year 1967 it was done due to the fraud practiced by respondent 3 on the petitioner's father and that no possession has been taken by the respondent 3 in pursuance of the surrender order. She also submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit at O. S. No. 28 of 1970 which is still pending for declaration that he is the tenant and that an injunction has been issued against respondent 3 in that suit.

( 5 ) AS against these arguments the learned Counsel for respondent 3 has relied on the statement made by the petitioner and his father before the Land Tribunal at Khanapur at the time of the surrender proceedings.

( 6 ) THE surrender proceedings took place in M. L. R. No. 237 of 1987 before the Land Tribunal at Khanapur. Judicial notice can be taken that at that time a Judicial Officer of the cadre of munsiff used to preside over the proceedings of the Land tribunal. Therefore, the proceedings of the surrender have taken place before the Land Tribunal precided by a Judicial Officer. Certified copy of the statement of the father of the petitioner is produced in this case at Annexure-R-2. In that statement the father of the petitioner has stated as follows:"i am surrendering the suit land to the opponent as I cannot cultivate it. "the petitioner has also given his statement which is produced at Annexure-R-3 by respondent 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was also a tenant along his father. But in his statement before the Land Tribunal the father of the petitioner has very categorically stated as follows:"i have no tenancy right in the land of the opponent". The petitioner in his statement before the Land Tribunal has stated as follows:"i have no interest in the suit land. My father is the tenant of the land. . . . I and my brothers have no tenancy rights in the suit land". In view of these statements made by these persons before the land Tribunal it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner now that the petitioner was also a tenant along with his father of this land. It is very clear that the case of the petitioner that he was also a tenant of the land is developed by the petitioner as an after thought.

( 7 ) THE proceedings before the Land Tribunal discloses that the father has surrendered the land. There is no material produced by the petitioner to lead to the inference that there was any fraud practised on his father for surrendering the land at that time. This theory of fraud also appears to be very improvable in view of the fact that not only the petitioner's father but the petitioner himself was examined before the Land tribunal and in his statement before the Tribunal he has not stated that any fraud was practised by respondent 3 on his father for surrendering the land. Therefore, it will have to be held that the petitioner's father who was the only tenant of the land surrended his tenancy rights and that surrender was accepted by the Tribunal. The other contention that is raised by the Counsel for the petitioner is that no possession has been delivered by the father of the petitioner in pursuance of the surrender and therefore the petitioner continues to be the tenant of the land. The learned Munsiff who was the Pres