B. Manohar, J : Appellant is the petitioner in W.P.No.37875/1993 being aggrieved by the order dated 14-6-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner confirming the order dated 31-7-1993 passed by the Land Tribunal filed this appeal.

2. The appellant has contended that he is a tenant in respect of the land bearing Sy.No. 10 measuring 3 acres 27 guntas of land situated at Arhatolalu village. Bhadravathi Taluk from the year 1969. The said land was taken on lease from one Kalamma who is the grandmother of 1 respondents 13 and 14 herein as per Guthige Kararu Pathra dated 6-10-1969 since then he has been in possession and cultivating the said land. In view ~ of coming into force the Land Reforms Act, he filed an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. Further respondents 3, 4, 5 also filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. The Land Tribunal after clubbing all the applications filed in respect of Sy.No, 10 of Arhatolalu village, by its order dated 13-10-1981 granted I acre of land in favour of 3rd respondent and 1 acre of land in favour of the petitioner and 1 acre 27 guntas of land in favour of 5th respondent and rejected the claim of the 4th respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 31-10-1981 passed by the Land Tribunal filed W.P.No. 1571/1982 before this Court challenging the same on various grounds. This Court by its order dated 11-6-1985 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh enquiry and also directed the Tribunal to issue notice to all the interested parties.

3. The Land Tribunal after issuing notice to all the parties and after holding necessary enquiry by its order dated 31-7 -1993 granted occupancy rights in favour of the 5th respondent (i.e., respondent No.12 herein) and rejected the claim of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. The Land Tribunal after recording the statement of the applicants and their witnesses came to the conclusion that the petitioner is residing at Hutha colony, Bhadravathi Taluk which is about 24 kms away from the Arhatolalu village.

It was further observed that the petitioner was doing the business of arrack vending and no document has been produced to show that he was cultivating the land from the year 1969. The other applicants have also not produced any documents to show that they were the tenants of the said lands.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-7-1993 passed by the Land Tribunal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37875/2005 before this Court contending that the order passed by the Land Tribunal is contrary to law without considering the lease deed, rent receipts, RTC entries solely on the statement of the landlord granted occupancy rights in favour of the 5th respondent in the writ petition and sought for setting aside the same. The learned Single Judge after hearing all the contesting parties held that the lease deed dated 6-10-1969 produced by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The lease deed said to have been executed on 6-10-1969 whereas the witness has signed the lease deed on 6-8-1969. The said document was cooked up for the purpose of claiming occupancy rights. Further there was money transaction between the petitioner and the owner of the land i.e., grandmother of respondents 13 and 14 and he has taken signature on the blank papers. The said blank papers might have been used for the purpose of creating Guthige Kararu and the same cannot be believed at all. Further, the owner of the land in her evidence deposed that 5th respondent is cultivating the land. Further no document has been produced before the Court to show that he was cultivating the said land accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge the petitioner filed this appeal.

6. Sri. G.M. Anand, learned Counsel