The main legal point established is the requirement of reflecting sale transactions in revenue records as per the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the need for specific evidence to establish tenancy rights.

Petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of order dated 20.2.2004 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-‘F’ granting occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 81/3 measuring 30 guntas and Sy. No. 82/3 measuring 9 guntas of Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in favour of respondent No.1.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the properties in question were purchased by their father Mohammed Habebulla on 2.8.1971 from respondent No.1 and from that date, till his death, the petitioners’ father used to cultivate the lands and was in actual possession of the same and after the death of their father, the petitioners are in occupation of the lands.

4. The first respondent filed an application in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in his favour on the ground that he is cultivating the said lands for the past eight years. It is the case of the first respondent that suit land was sold to the father of the petitioners by his family who in turn, leased the suit lands in their favour and since then, they are cultivating the suit lands and are in possession of the same. It was the contention of the father of the petitioners that he never leased the lands in favour of the first respondent’s family. After hearing, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of first respondent vide order at Annexure-‘D’. Being aggrieved, the first petitioner filed W.P.No.671/1983 before this Court. This Court by its order dated 27.2.1985 remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration. After remand, the Land Tribunal once again conferred occupancy rights in favour of first respondent vide its order dated 12.3.1987. Against the said order, petitioners preferred W.P. No. 20599/1999 and this Court by its order dated 2.11.2000, again remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal on the ground that the order of the Land Tribunal is not a speaking order and directed the Land Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 20.2.2004 vide Annexure-‘F’, conferred occupancy rights in favour of first respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed.

5. It appears, respondent No.1 sold the properties in dispute to the father of the petitioners on 2.8.1972 and that the father of the petitioners leased the land in favour of respondent No.1 ever since it was sold to him. It is pertinent to note, the entries made in the record of rights and pahani shows that from 1969-70 onwards upto 1973-74, the properties stood in the name of one Muniga who claims to be a tenant. Even on perusal of revenue records and pahani extract from 1968-73, no change is found either in the column of ownership or in the tenancy column. Both the parties specifically admit the fact that sale has taken place on 2.8.1971 in favour of Mohammed Habebulla. As per the provisions of sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the entries should have been reflected in the revenue records by the revenue authorities within a reasonable time after sale transaction is effected. The revenue authorities have not entered the name of the owner. It is in clear violation of the mandate of sections 128 and 129 of the Land Revenue Act. What is to be noticed is that except oral testimony of the petitioner No.1, there is nothing on record to show that there was a tenancy created in favour of one Muniga by the purchasers of the properties in dispute after 1971 before 1.3.1974. Mere continuous possession does not amount to permissive possession. It appears, the oral testimony has been rebutted in the cross examination. It appears, taking advantage of continuous possession or symbolic possession, for want of non-entering the name of the purchaser in the relevant column of RTC and pahani, Muniga claims to be a tenant as on 1.3.1974 and his name is there in the original record. But