respondent and his name was shown in the RTC as personally cultivating the same. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners and their predecessors in title never cultivated the land in question as tenants and there was absolutely no evidence in this regard. It this regard, it is stated that the petitioners and their predecessors long after the regrant order was made in favour of the third respondent, filed an application without any basis, to the Tahsildar seeking possession of the land and an order was passed holding that their predecessor-in-title could not come under the provisions of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, as the grant was already made in favour of the father of the third respondent and that his claim could not be considered. However, the petitioners had filed Form No.7 stating that they were cultivating the land for over 15 years, which was false as there was a regrant order in favour of the father of the third respondent. The Land Tribunal had passed an order dated 5.6.1982 granting occupancy rights in their favour. Questioning the same, the third respondent and his
