N.K. Patil, J: Deceased petitioner - tenant, now represented legal representative-son Nagappa has questioned the correctness of the order dated 23rd February, 2004 passed in proceedings No.LRA/1976-77/1253 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Gulbarga, rejecting the application filed by deceased petitioner - Sri. Honnappa for registration of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.29/1 measuring 04 acres 23 Guntas situate at Nagoor Village, Gulbarga District, vide Annexure-A. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent Land Tribunal, Gulbarga to register the occupancy rights in respect of the land in question in favour of petitioner.

2. Late Sri. Honnappa, claiming to be tenant had filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.29/1 measuring 04 acres 23 guntas situate at Nagoor Village, Gulbarga Taluk and District. The said application was considered by the Land Tribunal and occupancy rights was registered by the Land Tribunal, Gulbarga on 17th .January, 1980. Being aggrieved by the said order, the third respondent herein filed Writ Petition No. 8077/1980 before this Court, and this set aside the order passed by Land Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal. Thereafter, there have been two rounds of litigation, questioning the correctness of the order passed by Land Tribunal, and on both the occasions, the writ petitions filed before this Court have been allowed and the orders passed by the Land Tribunal are set aside and the matter was remitted back to the land Tribunal to pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal, after conducting thorough enquiry as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Rules, has rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that, neither the deceased petitioner - Honnappa nor the son Nagappa have ever cultivated the said land in question as tenant as on 1st March, 1974. However, the Chairman of the Land Tribunal has recorded the finding that, the name of the petitioner is found in the record of rights and therefore he is entitled for registration of occupancy rights. However, the members of the Land Tribunal have given their independent opinion for rejection of the claim of the petitioner holding that, at no point of time, the land in question has been cultivated as tenant either by the petitioner or by his son on half share basis. Further, it is observed that, petitioner himself has stated that, the land has been pledged as security by the deceased petitioner - Honnappa with deceased husband of the third respondent. The third respondent has specifically stated that, at no point of time, the land has been given to the deceased Honnappa by her husband for cultivation under half share basis. Majority members of the Land Tribunal have given their opinion by giving valid reasons for rejection of the claim of petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by second respondent-Land Tribunal, as stated supra, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents.

4. After careful evaluation of the entire material available on file, including the order passed by Land Tribunal, Gulbarga, what emerges is that, the Land Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, following due procedure as envisaged under Rule.17 of the Land Reforms Rules, by majority decision, has given valid reasons and recorded the finding after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, holding that, the deceased Honnappa, the late father of petitioner was never cultivating the said land on half share basis and the said land was pledged with the late husband of third respondent and that, the petitioner has staying in Gulbarga w