N.K. Patil, J.

1. This appeal by the respondents 3 to 6 appellants is directed against the impugned order dated 10-1-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27983 of 2004 (LR). The brief facts of the case are:

"The petitioners/respondents 4 to 6 herein have filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 27983 of 2004, questioning the correctness of the order dated 9-2-2004 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mulbagal in Nos. LRF.575/74-75 and 1145/75-76, granting occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 330 of Mulbagal Village measuring 1 acre 08 guntas in favour of deceased Venkataramaiah now represented by his LR and in respect of Sy. No. 331/2 of Mulbagala Village measuring 20 guntas, in favour of respondents 4 to 6 appellants 2 to 4 herein, contending that, they are the children of late Dhruvarayachar and Rukmini Bayamma. The land bearing Sy. Nos. 330 measuring 1 acre 08 guntas and Sy No. 331/2 measuring 20 guntas situated at Mulbagal Village belonged to Rukmini Bayamma. One Kullappa, S/o Narayanaswamy, the father of appellants 2 to 4 filed Form 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 20 guntas in Sy. No. 331/2 and one Venkataramaiah, the husband of appellant 1 has filed Form 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 1 acre and 08 guntas in Sy. No. 330 of Mulbagal Village. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 30-6-1987, granted occupancy rights in their favour which was challenged in W.P. No. 15777 of 1993 by the petitioners and their mother and this Court has set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to implead the real owner. After the remand, the Land Tribunal has passed an order dated 9-2-2004 in Nos. LRF 575/74-75 and 1145/75-76 in favour of the appellants herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/respondents 4 to 6, have filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 27983 of 2004. The said matter had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 10-1-2012. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the materials available on record, has allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal, holding that the appellants have not produced any iota of evidence to show that they are cultivating the lands in question, specifically referring that late Rukmini Bayamma has filed original suit in O.S. No. 176 of 1986 for redemption of mortgage which was decreed in the year 1987 and therefore, from 1969 till 1987 the lands in question were in possession of the mortgagee i.e. Venkatappa and therefore, the question of Kullappa and Venkataramaiah being the tenants does not arise. Further, it is held that, since RTC extracts indicate from 1964-1965 till 1970-1971 the column 12(2) has been left blank in respect of Sy. No. 330 and for the years 1971-1972 till 1976-1977, the name of one Kuppanna has been shown in column 12(2) and in respect of Sy. No. 331/2, the RTC extracts show from 1964-1965 till 1970-1971, column 12(2) has been left blank and for the years 1971-1972 till 1976-1977 cultivation is shown as own and the name of Kullappa or Venkataramaiah does not find place in the RTC extract. One Venkatappa, the mortgagee has stated that he was cultivating the land and it was mortgaged and the mortgage has been admitted and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in granting occupancy rights in favour of appellants and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondents 4 to 6/appellants have presented this appeal."

2. We have perused the grounds urged by the appellants in the memorandum of writ appeal and heard the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties.

3. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants is that, in fact, the name of one late Kuppanna, father of the appellants 2 to 4 has been shown in the ROR for