As per case facts, the petitioner challenged a Land Tribunal order confirming occupancy rights for respondents over specific land. The petitioner contended the land was 'punja land', incapable of cultivation, ... and thus not falling under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act's definition of 'land'. The original tenancy claim also lacked specific survey numbers. Initially, the Tribunal denied tenancy, but after a remand, it granted occupancy rights, relying on old money order receipts and a recent survey report to confirm cultivation. The question arose whether the disputed land qualified as 'land' under the Act and if tenancy was proved on the cut-off date. Finally, the High Court found the Tribunal's finding on cultivation perverse, noting the survey report was too recent and older RTCs didn't show active cultivation. The Court reiterated that mere trees don't prove agricultural use on 'punja land' and that old money orders were weak evidence. Concluding the land didn't fall under the Act's definition, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the petition.