S. R. BANNURMATH, J.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 3-9-2002 passed in W. P. No. 25879/2002 by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of the Authorised Officer dated 28-3-2002, the presented appeal is filed.

( 2 ) THE claimant claiming to be an agriculturist applied for grant of occupancy right under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 161/ 2a measuring 10 cents of Savanoor Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina kannada District. Though the claimant claimed occupancy rights for 10 cents, the Authorised Officer has granted only 6 cents. According to him, though the appellant had filed application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 38/2, 38/5 and in respect of 161/a-2, the Tribunal while granting occupancy, had inadvertently left out to include the present Survey number i. e. , 161/2a. As such, after coming into force of the provisions of Section 77-A, he approached the Authorised Officer and by the impugned order dated 28-3-2002, the same was granted to him. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no-2 herein approached this Court in W. P. No. 25879/2002. This Court on hearing both sides allowed the writ petition by holding that as the present appellant has already granted certain lands by the Land Tribunal under section 48a of the Act, his application under Section 77-A of the Act is not at all maintainable. Accordingly, it quashed the order dated 28-3-2002 and hence, the present appeal.

( 3 ) SRI. U. ABDUL Khader, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the effect, aims and objects of the provisions of Section 77-A of the Act. It is submitted that even if the appellant had approached the Tribunal for grant of occupancy right in respect of other lands that will not prevent him from claiming occupancy rights in respect of another land, which he did not include in his original Form No. 7. Taking us through the provisions of section 77-A of the Act, it is stated that the conditions which are required to be complied with or demonstrated by the applicant is that immediately before 1-3-1974, the land claimed by the claimant under Section 77-A of the Act does not exceed one unit and has vested with the State Government under Section 44 of the Act and that, he continued to be in actual possession and cultivation of the said land on the date of commencement of the amendment Act No. 23/1977. It is submitted that as the appellant fulfills all the conditions, the learned Single Judge was in error in reversing the order of the Land Tribunal and hence, the same is liable to be set aside, thereby quashing the order of the Authorised Officer.

( 4 ) SRI. K. M. Nataraj, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, sought to justify the order passed by the learned Single judge to contend that the scope, objects and the reasons of Section 77-A of the Act have been explained by this Court in three decisions in the case of, i) S. C. Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in 2005 AIR Kant. H. C. R. 1752. ii) Hosabayya Nagappa Naik and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Revenue Department and Others, reported in ilr 2002 Kar 1342. iii) K. P. Ramanna Rai Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Puttur, reported in AIR 2006 (1) Kar 341. and the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petitioner's claim.

( 5 ) IT is submitted that unlike the procedure prescribed under Section 48-of the Act for grant of occupancy, Section-77a has been inserted by the legislature to help those tenants who have inadvertently failed to file any application in Form No. 7 in respect of the land vested with the State government and still continue to be in possession of such land. It is submitted that in the present case as admitted by the appellant himself even though he was aware of requirement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document