( 1 ) HEARD Sri Srikrishna for Sri A. Keshava Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Sri M. G. S. Reddy, High Court Government Pleader for respondent 1 and respondent 2 and the learned Counsel, Sri A. V. Gangadharappa for respondent 3.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners in possession of the land mentioned in the schedule having inherited the rights of their predecessor late Sesu Master and they are in possession and enjoyment of the land. The 3rd respondent claiming that he was the tenant under the predecessor of the petitioners had filed Form 7-A before the land Tribunal, Belthangady for registration of occupancy right in respect of certain lands in Venoor Village. The Land Tribunal after enquiry had granted certain lands to the 3rd respondent by its order dated 12-12-1977 in No. LRY 8/75-76 as per Annexure-B. The 3rd respondent had not claimed S. No. 24/2 and even according to the survey conducted by the Land Tribunal, the schedule land was not in possession of the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, he filed Form under Section 7-A claiming occupancy right in respect of this S. No. 24/2. The Assistant commissioner, Puttur, passed an order granting occupancy right in favour of the 3rd respondent vide order dated 25-1-2001 in No. GDIS LRF: 12, 13, 19/98-99. This order is questioned in this petition.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has passed the order mechanically without applying its mind. Further, the application itself was not maintainable as the 3rd respondent made two applications earlier claiming occupancy right in respect of other lands and this survey number was not included in these applications. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have rejected the application. He also submitted that there is absolutely no material to hold that the respondent 3 is in possession of the property and he was never a tenant. No evidence also was recorded notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have filed their written objections whose name is found in the R of R for the year 1974. Even the lease deed also does not refer to in respect of this survey number. For the foregoing reasons, he submitted that the petition may be allowed.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent 3 submitted that the respondent 3 had filed two applications on earlier occasions and this survey number was not included. The survey was conducted and according to the survey report that survey number was not mentioned to be in his possession. Whatever was sought for in those applications was granted as he was in possession. The Assistant Commissioner formed his own opinion on the basis of the materials. The petitioners were represented by an Advocate and he did not even suggest to lead evidence. The 3rd respondent is a schedule caste illiterate person. Therefore, he was not aware of the procedure and the Assistant Commissioner ought to have adviced him about the procedure. He has been residing in a part of the land. He also further submitted that there is no prohibition under Section 77-A to make fresh applications in respect of such land which was not included in earlier applications. Therefore, he submitted that there is no lacuna as such in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and hence the impugned order does not call for interference. The learned advocate as usual fully supported the impugned order.

( 5 ) IN view of these arguments, it is now necessary to reproduce Section 77-A which reads:"grant of land in certain cases. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act if the Deputy Commissioner [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 e