- 1 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1220 OF 2025 (LR-SEC)

BETWEEN:

1.

THIMMAIAH

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

H.T. GANGADHARAIAH

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

GOVINDAMMA

W/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

R/AT NULUGUMMANAHALLI

MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI

GAURIBIDANUR TALUK

CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 208

2. H.G. GANGEGOWDA

S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

R/AT NULUGUMMANAHALLI

MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI

GAURIBIDANUR TALUK

CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 208

3. SRI H.T. CHANDRAIAH

S/O LATE THIMMAIAH

- 2 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

R/AT HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE

JARABANDHAHALLI POST

MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI

GAURIBIDANUR TALUK

CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 208

4. SRI H.T. KRISHNEGOWDA

S/O LATE THIMMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

R/AT HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE

JARABANDHAHALLI HOBLI

MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI

GAURIBIDANUR TALUK

CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 208

5. SMT. VEBKATALAKSHMAMMA

D/O LATE THIMMAIAH

W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY

R/AT SUNKADA GATE

(NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL)

DODDABALLAPURA TALUK

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203

6. SMT. NARAYANAMMA

D/O LATE THIMMAIAH

W/O SRI ANJAN KUMAR

R/AT UJJINI HOSHALLI

KAMALURU POST

DODDABALLAPURA TALUK

BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI PRAVEEN KAMATH M.R., ADVOCATE)

- 3 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

AND:

1. SRI K. NARAYANA GOWDA

S/O H.A. KEMPAIAH

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

R/AT HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE

JARABANDHAHALLI POST

MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI

GAURIBIDANUR TALUK

CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 208

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

GAURIBIDANUR TALUK

GAURIIDANUR

CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI YESHWANTH NETAJI, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 &

SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS

WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

DATED 16.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.37713/201 6

(LR-SEC) & ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS

PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

- 4 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellants have filed the present intra-court appeal

impugning an order dated 16.06.2025 [impugned order] passed

by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.37713/2016

(LR-SEC). The learned Single Judge partly allowed the said writ

petition by the impugned order, whilst, the claim made by the legal

heirs of Smt. Venkatamma [petitioner No.1(a) to (d) in the writ

petition] claiming occupancy rights in respect of land falling in

Survey No.2/2B, Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanuru Taluk, was

rejected; The claim made by respondent No. 1 (K. Narayana

Gowda) was arrayed as petitioner No.2 in writ petition, claiming

occupancy rights in land falling in Survey No.15/2B, Gollahalli

Village, Gauribidanuru Taluk, to the extent of one- half share, was

allowed. The learned Single Judge had held that respondent No.1

and the representatives of respondent No.2 shared the said subject

land equally.

2. The Appellants claimed that the subject land (land measuring

5 acres and 12 guntas falling in Survey No.15/2B, situated in

- 5 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanuru Taluk, Chikkaballapura District)

belonged to them. It is further stated that the said land was

purchased by the predecessors in interest of the appellants, from

the heirs of the original owner (Kare Rangappa), under two

registered sale deeds dated 18.04.1980 and 18.02.1981. They

claim that the subject land was mutated in the names of the

purchasers/ their successors in interest, are in continuous

possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. The respondent No.1 claims occupancy rights in respect of

part of the subject land, which was rejected. However, the said

claim has been accepted by the learned Single Judge, albeit to the

extent of one half share and the said decision forms the subject

matter of the present appeal.

The Context

4. As noted above, the appellants claim that the subject land

was owned by one Kare Rangappa. His legal heirs had sold the

same to Thimmaiah and his son H.T. Gangadharaiah, under two

registered sale deeds dated 18.04.1980 and 18.02.1981. The

appellants are the legal heirs of late Thimmaiah and H.T.

Gangadharaiah. The appellant No.1 is the wife of la te

Gangadharaiah and appellant No.2 is his son. Appellant Nos.3 and

- 6 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

4 are sons of late Thimmaiah and appellant Nos.5 and 6 are his

two daughters.

5. The subject land to the extent of one (01) acre, out of five

(05) acres and twelve (12) guntas was purchased by Sri.

Thimmaiah on 18.04.1980 and H.T. Gangadharaiah (son of late

Thimmaiah), who is since expired, had purchased the remaining

portion of the subject land - land measuring four (04) acres and

twelve (12) guntas - under the registered sale deed dated

18.02.1981. The subject land is mutated in the name of late

Thimmaiah, under MR.No.20/1979-80 and the balance land was

mutated under MR.No.6/1998-99.

6. The revenue records clearly show that the certified copies of

the revenue records have been placed on record. The entries of

the year 1971-72 to 1976-77, reflect the cultivator's name as

Gangadharappa and the owner's name as Kareranga. The entries

of the year 1977-78 to 1980-81, reflect the names o f

Gangadharappa, as well as K. Narayana Gowda (R-1) u nder

Column No.12(2). However, the entries for the year 1981-82,

reflect the names of Gangadharappa, K. Narayana Gowda and

Thimmaiah under Colunm No.12(2).

- 7 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

7. On 27.02.1999, respondent No.1, K. Narayana Gowda filed

an application in Form 7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka

Land Reforms Act, 1961 [KLR Act], claiming occupancy rights in

respect of the subject land. It is relevant to note that prior to the

said date, on 29.01.1999, the mother of respondent No.1, is

petitioner No.1 in the writ petition WP.37713/2016 - had filed Form

'7A' claiming occupancy rights in respect to lands falling in Survey

No.2/2B, to the extent of 37 guntas. Both applications were clubbed

together and considered by the Assistant Commission er

(respondent No.2).

8. Although the said applications were in respect of different

parcels of land, the Assistant Commissioner, had clubed the same,

as they were filed by related parties i.e., mother and son. The

claim of writ petitioner No.1 for occupancy rights was rejected by

the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.5388/2002, albeit,

to the extent of 25 guntas. The said order had dismissed the claim

of the petitioner No.1. Therefore, as noted above the writ petitioner

No.1 is not arrayed as a party to the present appeal.

9. After the application was filed, Inspection was conducted

pursuant to the said application, which was reported and the survey

report indicates that the surveyor visited the house of Respondent

- 8 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

No.1 and learnt from his mother that he serves as a teacher at

Manchenahalli School and therefore he could not be present for

measurement/survey of the land. Inspection was cond ucted

subsequently in the year 2003 and the said report d ated

05.02.2003 indicates that there was some quarrel between

respondents and petitioners.

10. The Assistant Commissioner considered these applications

for grant of occupancy right and dismissed the same by an order

dated 15.03.2003. Respondent No.2 noted that Gangadharappa,

s/o Kare Rangappa is owner of the subject land and after his

demise, Hanumantharayappa and Radharama were owners and

they cultivated the land from 1972. His sons had given a joint

statement to the effect that the subject lands have been purchased

by their father from Kare Rangappa in the name of the eldest son.

The sale deed are also produced. Respondent No.2 had recorded

their statement. They also made statement to the effect that they

were in cultivation of the subject land. We consider it apposite to

set out the findings of the Assistant Commissioner (respondent

No.2) has set out in the order dated 18.03.2003, insofar as it

relates to the subject land. The same are reproduced. The relevant

extract to the said order is reproduced below.

- 9 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

"The documents concerned to Sy no: 15:2B

in The Gollahali Village, as per the Pahani record,

there is total 6A 12 gunta land there is Kharab 1-00

acre and residue 5acre 12 gunta. This land belongs

to Gangappa. After his death, his brother

Hanumantharayappa and Radharama have sold to

HT Gangadharappa son of Thimmaiah through

registered sale deed in Reg No: 2583:80-81 dated:

18-2-81. The Pahani records have been examined,

the name of K Narayanagowda is in 12:2 from

1977-78 to 1981-82. The name of applicant is not

entried in Cultivation 12:2 column from 1971-72 to

1976-77. Apart from this when Taluk surveyor went

to conduct the survey by informing to present in the

said place in advance, the said was not present

and it has came to know through Mahazar. From

the report it has came to know that on date: 5-2-

2003 when went to conduct survey with Revenue

Inspector, applicants and respondents have fought

and not co-operated to the survey, the 2nd

applicant is the lecturer Manchenahalli Composite

Pre-University College.

The aforesaid aspects have been examined;

it has confirmed that the 2

nd

applicant submitted

application for Sy No: 15:2B is not cultivator of said

land on date: 1-3-1974 as per Section 77A of

Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961.

:ORDER:

The Form-7A Applications submitted by 1

st

and 2

nd

applicants for 0-13 gunta land in Sy No:

2:2B and 5 Acre 12 gunta land in Sy No: 15:2B in

Gollahalli Village, Manchenahalli Hobli

Gowribidanuru taluk as per Section 77A of

Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 has been

dismissed.

- 10 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

This order has been dictated to the typists

and typed ad revised and pronounced in Open

court on date: 15-3-2003."

11. Respondent No.1 and his mother (writ petitioner No.1)

preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [KAT]

(Appeal No.602/2003) assailing the order dated 15.03.2003. KAT

rejected the said appeal by an order dated 13.05.2016. We

consider it apposite to set out the finding. The relevant extract of

the said order is set out below.

"10. Now coming to the claim of the 2

nd

appellant

who has filed Form No. 7A claiming the grant of

occupancy right pertaining to land measuring 5.12

acres in Sy. No. 15/2b. Originally the said land was

belonging to one Karegangappa. After his death his

brothers Hanumantharayappa and Radharam have

sold the same land to one H.T. Gangadharappa

S/o. Thimmaiah vide registered sale deed dated

18.02.1981. The trial court has said that on

verification of RTC the name of the 2

nd

appellant

K.N. Gowda is found in RTC for the year 1977-78

to 1981-82 and his name is found in Col. No. 12(2).

But the name of the Gangadharappa was found in

Col. No. 12(2) in RTC for the period from 1971-72

to 1981-82. But the name of the 2

nd

appellant

Narayana Gowda not found in Col. No. 12(2) for

the period 1971-72 to 1976-77 means as on the

relevant point of time i.e. as on 01.03.1974 his

name was not found since he was not the tenant of

the said land. The trial court also rejected the claim

of the 2

nd

appellant on the ground that the 2

nd

appellant is a teacher in the combined Pre-

- 11 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

University College. This aspect makes it very clear

that the 2

nd

appellant K. Narayana Gowda 1 is not

the tenant of the disputed land. Merely because the

name of the 2nd appellant Narayana Gowda was

found in Col No. 12(2) for the period 1977-78 to

1981-82 is not the ground for accepting his tenancy

because the 2

nd

appellant has shown one

Thimmaiah as landlord of his disputed land.

according to the sale transaction his son

Gangadharappa had purchased 5.12 acres in Sy.

No. 15/2b vide sale deed dated 18.02.1981 from

the brothers of Kare Gangappa. When that being

the case, the claim made by the 2

nd

appellant

against Thimmaiah as his Landlord is not correct.

11. Furthermore, there must be evidence before

the court to say the land in question should be the

tenanted land and it should be vested with the

Government as on the relevant point of time.

Absolutely no material has been placed by the 2

nd

appellant to prove regarding the vesting of land.

The purchaser Gangadharappa has given the

evidence before the trial court as under:-

[1 "Ou 1981-82ರ rOfaft hendIv bcIlOigswqy ao9

8slIn-u 2O. WO-p ಜ"ೕನು rO. -F "O, GKu SIKkRI.

WO-p ಈ ಜ"ೕನನು+ ,ಾ-ಗೂ dIykTBO.fk . GKBIBO.fk

ೊ/0ರುವ 1ಲ . WORIk ಸ2ಂತ rO. -F "O, GKu SIKkRI. ಸದ-

03kgaft

3.00 ಎಕ4ೆ gkqiT ಮರಗಳನು+ 6ೆ7ೆ8ರು(ೆ'ೕ)ೆ.

4Ik9I9 6ೆ7ೆ ಇದು; ಭತ' 6I7In GKlI;kRI...]

1

(Kannada Extraction)

(Translation of Kannada Version)

1

"Our father and I have been cultivating the land since we acquired it in the year

about 1981-82. We have not given this land to anyon e on loan or lease. We are

cultivating it ourselves. We have grown eucalyptus trees in the said land of 03 acres.

We are also growing silk and rice."

- 12 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

This is the evidence of the 2

nd

respondent before

the trial court.

12. Per contra the 2

nd

appellant herein has given

his evidence which reads as under:

=ದಲು ಗಂ.ಾಧರಪ? @A ಕ4ೆರಂಗಪ? ನಂತರ

ಗಂ.ಾಧರಪ?ನವರ ಪವ& ನಂತರ ಅವರ 12Iykwu4Ow ಇವರು

4ಾCಾ4ಾಮ ಹನುಮಂತ4ಾಯಪ? <y"Ofkh4Oiu SOK4I. WOa

ಸದ- ಜ"ೕನನು+ 1972-ಂದಲೂ rO. -F "O, GKlI;kWI. ಸದ-

ಜ"ೕನು ನನ.ೆ 1972uft ನನ.ೆ Ekfa ಭೂ "Ofkhu .ೇF.ೆ

gkGw;u . 1972ರ HslI ಆದ4ೇ ಸ2ಂತ rO. -F "O, GKw;u .

WOa 4Oi, ಕಡJೇ ಾK, Lೋಳ ಮುಂ(ಾದ 6ೆJೆಯನು+

6ೆ7ೆಯು&'ದ;ವ . 6ೆ7ೆದ M1faft ಅಧN Oಾಗ ಭೂ "OfkhTBI

ೋರು uybwft dIy, GKlI;a . ೋರು dIyj0u -pwdIv

7O-plIk lOPJI.5Q ಇರುವ 1ಲ .

2

It means the appellant has no any evidence

to prove his tenancy. But it appears that he wanted

to say orally to the effect that he was a tenant since

the year 1972 itself. Even then he has no any

documentary evidence or any believable evidence

on this important issue.

12. As noted above, aggrieved by the said order Respondent

No.1, who is his mother, had preferred a writ petition being

WP.No.37713/2016, which was partly allowed by the impugned

order.

2

First, Gangadharappa son of Karerangappa, then aft er the death of

Gangadharappa, his brother Sri Radharama Hanumantha rayappa became the land

owner. I have been cultivating the said land since 1972. The said land was given to

me on lease by the above land owner in 1972. Befor e 1972, I was cultivating it

myself. I used to grow rice, groundnut, jowar etc. I used to give half of the grown

crop to the land owner in the form of Koru. There are no records for giving Koru.

- 13 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

13. It is apparent from the above that the Assistan t

Commissioner and the KAT had examined the claim of the

respondent and had found that the entries made in the land records

did not substantiate his claim in being a tenant in possession and

cultivation of the subject land during the material period.

14. It is relevant to note that respondent No.1 had made an

application for being registered as an occupant of the subject land

under Section 77A of the KLR Act. The said section was introduced

by virtue of Act No.23 of 1998 with effect from 01.11.1988. Section

77A is reproduced below.

77-A. Grant of land in certain cases.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if

the Deputy Commissioner, or the [or any other officer

authorised by the State Government in this behalf] is

satisfied after holding such enquiry as he deems fit,

that a person,—

(i) was, immediately before the first day of March, 1974

in actual possession and cultivation of any land not

exceeding one unit, which has vested in the State

Government under Section 44; and

(ii) being entitled to be registered as an occupant of

such land under Section 45 or 49 has failed to apply

for registration of occupancy rights in respect of such

land under sub-section (1) of Section 48-A within the

period specified therein; and

- 14 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

(iii) has continued to be in actual possession and

cultivation of such land on the date of

commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms

(Amendment) Act, 1997,

-he may [* * *] grant the land to such person subject

to such restrictions and conditions and in the

manner, as may be prescribed.

(2) The provisions of sub-sections (2A) and (2B) of

Section 77 and the provisions of Section 78 shall

apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the grant of land

made under sub-section (1).]

[Provided that the land so granted together with the

land already held by such person shall not exceed 2

hectares of D class of land or its equivalent thereto.]"

15. The objective of introducing Section 77A of the KLR Act was

to grant another opportunity to a person who is a lawful tenant on

an appointed date, but had failed to make an application under

Section 45 of the KLR Act. Such an applicant could be registered

as an occupant only if the Deputy Commissioner or any other

officer authorized by the State Government was satisfied after

holding such enquiry, as it deems fit, that the applicant was

immediately before the first day of March, 1974 in actual

possession and cultivation of any land, not exceeding one unit, but

which was vested with the State Government by virtue of Section

44 of the KLR Act. Additionally, the Deputy Commissioner was also

required to be satisfied that the applicant had failed to apply for

- 15 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

registration of the occupancy rights under Section 48 (1A) of the

KLR Act, but had continued to be in actual possession and

cultivation of such land on the date of the Karnataka Land Reforms

Act, 1997. The procedure for grant of land was specified under

Rule 26-C of the Karnataka Land Reform Rules. In Hosabayya

Nagappa Naik and others v. State of Karnataka, by i ts

Secretary, Revenue Department and others : ILR 2002 KAR.

1342, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had considered the

scope of inquiry to be conducted under Section 77A of the KLR

Act. The relevant extract of the said Rule is set out below.

"7. Having indicated the sweep and the

extent of Rule 26C let us now consider the scope

of the Rule. Sub-Rule 5 of the Rule is only to be

understood in the context of Section 77A and this is

where the main provision of Section 77A takes

control of the situation. The procedure envisaged

under Rule 26C for the purposes of granting of land

under Section 77A of the Act cannot go beyond the

purpose for which the section is provided for. As

noticed earlier the object of the section is to provide

an opportunity to those who might have been truly

and lawfully tenants of the land, who were in

possession and cultivation and continued to be in

possession and cultivation, who might have missed

the bus by not making an application within the

stipulated period which in fact had come to be

extended from time to time and to ensure that there

possession and cultivation is continued without

being disturbed any further. It is very essential to

- 16 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

point out that an application under Section 77A is

not the same as an application under Section 45,

and the enquiry contemplated under Section 77A

cannot be the same as an enquiry conducted by

the Land Tribunal under Section 48A of the Act.

Whereas on an application under Section 45,

enquiry by the Land Tribunal is for grant of

conferment of occupancy rights, an application

under Section 77A to the Deputy Commissioner or

other officer authorised by the State Government is

for the purpose of grant of land. The provisions of

Section 77A is for the purpose of granting of land

on satisfaction of certain conditions namely three

conditions mentioned therein. It is to be noticed

that conditions (1) and (2) are conditions which

should have been satisfied and foregone in respect

of the land. It is not an enquiry to ascertain whether

a person can be granted land being a tenant as on

the appointed date, such an enquiry was within the

scope of Section 48A and not for the purposes of

condition (1) of Section 77A. Here the enquiry is

only for a limited purpose to find out the

accomplished fact as to whether the person was in

actual possession and cultivation of the land on the

appointed date. It is not as though the authorities

are to hold an enquiry for the purpose of

conferment of occupancy rights on the premise that

the applicants were lawful tenants on the appointed

date and the enquiry was for such purpose. The

factum of the applicants being a lawful tenant on

the appointed date and was in cultivation as on the

appointed date is not to be established now in the

present enquiry, but it should have been a

concluded fact that the scope of the present

enquiry is to let in evidence to satisfy or prove the

existence of such a concluded fact. It is for the

applicant to show that it was an undisputed fact

- 17 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

and on record and that without anything further

more he was a tenant lawfully in possession and

cultivation of the land on the appointed date. The

second condition is also of significance and

importance in the context of considering the

application ie., the land should have been vested in

the State Government as on the appointed date as

it was a tenanted land. This again is an event

which should have already taken place and as

such the evidence that is required to be placed by

the applicant to show that this is an event that has

taken place already. Obviously it should find a

place in some official record, as vesting of the land

is in favour of the State Government. In the

absence of any such record is again becomes a

disputed fact which again is not within the scope of

an enquiry under Section 77A of the Act. If these

two conditions are fulfilled then there is the

necessity and scope for inquiring with regard to the

third condition namely as to whether the applicant

has continued to be in possession and cultivation

of such land as on the date of the commencement

of the amending Act le. 1.11.1998.

8. We say this for yet another reason namely

that the last date for filing of application under

Section 45 in Form No. 7 had been extended from

time to time. If the scope of enquiry contemplated

under Section 77A of the Act was to be the same

as an enquiry under Section 48A of the Act then it

would have been the simplest thing for the

Legislature to extend such date instead of

providing for a separate provision as under Section

77A. On the other hand the Legislature has

advisedly provided for an enquiry under the Section

and two very important distinguishing features have

to be noticed. One is that the authority to whom the

- 18 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

application under Section 77A is to be made is the

Deputy Commissioner or any other Officer

authorised by the State Government in this behalf

and not the Land Tribunal which is the inquiring

authority under Section 48A of the Act and

secondly that the application in Form No. 7A is for

grant of land whereas an application under Form

No. 7 of the Rules and filed under Section 45 of the

Act was for grant of occupancy rights. Having

regard to these distinctions we are of the view that

the scope of enquiry under Section 26C is to be

understood for this purpose and not as though it is

an enquiry as contemplated under Section 48A of

the Act though for enquiry under either section,

Section 48A or 77A, it is mentioned to be a

summary enquiry as contemplated under Section

34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Though

the procedure mentioned under Rule 17 or Rule

26C of the Rules is the same procedure as the one

contemplated under Section 34 of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, one should not lose

sight of the fact that the enquiry under Rule 26C is

for the purposes of Section 77A for ascertaining

fulfillment of the three conditions enumerated

therein. As such the interpretation placed in the

context of an enquiry under Rule 17 though is as

provided under Section 34 of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, cannot be very apt in the context of

the provisions of Section 77A and Rule 26C. There

cannot be any dispute about the fundamental

requirements of one observing the principles of

natural justice, recording the summary of evidence

of the witnesses examined, for offering the witness

examined in chief for cross examination by the

opposite side, affording sufficient opportunity to

each party to present their case and passing of

reasoned order ultimately on examination of the

- 19 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

evidence on record. But in a situation where there

is no scope for observance of these aspects as in

the instant case where the documents on record

doesn't indicate anything positive with regard to

compliance of the first two conditions enumerated

in Section 77A, the question of offering the

respondents for cross examination or even shutting

out the applicants from examining the witnesses for

the purposes of proving the existence of the first

two conditions doesn't arise. What is not in

existence and is not borne out on record in respect

of an accomplished fact and of a past event cannot

be made good by means of oral evidence at the

time of an enquiry for the purposes of

Section 77A of the Act."

16. In a later decision, the full Bench of this Court in Lokayya

Poojary and another v. State of Karnataka and others : ILR

2012 KAR 4345, this Court has held as under:

"16. Interestingly, as in the case of Rule 17, for

conducting enquiry, the procedure prescribed

under Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964, is not made applicable to enquiry under

Section 77-A of the Act. In an enquiry under

Section 77-A read with Section 26-C, the question

of the authority going into the question whether the

land in question is a tenanted land or not, would

not arise, which question, the Tribunal constituted

under the Act alone is competent to go into under

Section 48 of the Act. No such power or jurisdiction

has been conferred under Section 77-A on the

Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant

- 20 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

Commissioner. The enquiry contemplated under

Section 77-A is to be confined only to the following:

(1) Whether the person who has made an

application under Section 77-A was in actual

possession and cultivation of any land before the

first day of March, 1974;

(2) Being entitled to be registered as occupants of

such land under Section 45 or 49, has failed to

apply for registration of occupancy rights in respect

of such land under sub-Section (1) of Section 48-A

within the period specified therein. In other words, if

such an application had been filed, which claim is

adjudicated upon by the Tribunal and if it is

negatived, then such a person is not entitled to file

an application under Section 77-A;

(3) Whether such a person is continued to be in

actual possession and cultivation of such land on

the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Amendment Act, 1977.

17. Proviso makes it clear that the land so granted

together with the land already held by such person

shall not exceed 2 Hectares of 'D' class of land or

its equivalent thereto. In other words, if the

applicant held land in excess of 2 Hectares of 'D'

Class of land or its equivalent thereto, he was not

entitled to grant of land under Section 77-A of the

Act, even if he was a tenant of the land in question

prior to 01.03.1974 and continued to be in

possession of the land and cultivating the land till

the introduction of Section 77-A of the Act. Though

such land vested with the Government as on

01.03.1974, he was not entitled to grant of land.

18. If we keep the above principle and the

Legislative intent in mind, what emerges is while

- 21 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

amending the Act and introducing Section 77-A,

the Legislature was very clear in its mind that by

the said amendment, they were not intending to

have one more forum for registration of occupancy

rights under Section 45 of the Act. These two

provisions were intended to cover two independent

fields. Similarly, if a person has availed the benefit

of Section 45-A and lost the battle, Section 77-A

was not meant to give him one more opportunity, a

second innings. The power to grant occupancy

rights under Section 45 was vested with a quasi-

judicial authority like a Tribunal. On the day the

amendment introducing Section 77-A came into

force, the Tribunals were in existence and

functioning. The intention of the Legislature was

not to give them jurisdiction to decide the claims

under Section 77-A. A separate machinery is now

contemplated under Section 77-A. The enquiry that

was contemplated under Section 45 is totally

different from the enquiry under Section 77-A, as is

clear from the fact that corresponding to Section

77-A Rule 26(c) was enacted and the claim under

Section 77-A had to be adjudicated in terms of the

procedure prescribed under Section 26(c). A

reading of Section 77-A makes it very clear this

provision has a limited application. It applies to only

certain cases, It is necessary to bear in mind the

context in which Section 77-A is introduced. This

provision finds a place in Chapter IV, whereunder

as per Section 77 a provision is made for disposal

of surplus lands on such land being vested with the

Government and also other lands which are vested

in the State. Therefore, in a proceeding under

Section 77-A, the enquiry that was contemplated

under Section 48-A is excluded. This is a provision

that enables a person who is in occupation of a

land, of which he was a tenant and continues to be

- 22 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

in possession as a tenant to apply for grant of such

land, if he had failed to make an application for

grant of occupancy rights within the time stipulated.

Such a person is given an opportunity to make an

application for grant of land provided he continues

to cultivate the land and he was not holding land in

excess of 2 Hectares of land. Therefore, in the said

proceedings the question whether the said land is a

tenanted land or not, cannot be gone into, as is

clear from the language used in Section 77-A. The

entire enquiry contemplated under Section 77-A is

in respect of a land, which is vested in the State

Government under Section 44, as on 01.03.1974. It

should be an undisputed fact. If the said fact is

disputed, then Section 77-A has no application.

The jurisdiction under Section 77-A is attracted only

in respect of undisputed tenanted lands. Vesting of

the land as on 01.03.1974 with the Government,

which fact is not in dispute, is a condition precedent

for application of Section 77-A."

(emphasis added)

17. In the present case, the land records do not reflect that

respondent No.1 was in occupation of the subject lands. The

learned Single Judge had clearly erred in holding that the RTC

extracts produced indicated that respondent No.1 along with the

said Gangadharaiah, were in cultivation of the land under the

landlord Kare Rangappa. On the appointed date i.e., 01.03.1974

does not reflect that respondent No.1 was a tenant under Kare

Rangappa or was in cultivated possession of the subject land. As

- 23 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

noted above, the certified copy of the RTC extracts reflect the

name of Gangadharappa under Column 12(2) for the years 1971-

72 to 1976-77. The name of respondent No.1 appears along with

Gangadharappa under Column 12(2) in the year 1977-78. The

report of the Revenue Inspector also does not establish that

respondent No.1 was in cultivation of the land in question on the

appointed date.

18. The sons of late Thimmaiah (H.T. Gangadharaiah and

appellant Nos.3 and 4) had deposed that they were in cultivation of

the subject land after execution of the sale deed. However, the

land records reflect the name of Gangadharappa also prior to

1981-82. However, there could not be any material to determine

whether respondent No.1 was cultivating the land as a tenant

under Karerangappa during the relevant year and thereafter. In

view of the above, we are unable to concur with the decision of the

learned Single Judge to interfere with the orders passed by the

Assistant Commissioner and the KAT, which were impugned in the

WP.No.37713/2016.

- 24 -

WA No. 1220 of 2025

19. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is

set aside.

SD

Sd/-

(VIBHU BAKHRU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

(C.M. POONACHA)

JUDGE