1. In these writ petitions, petitioner is challenging the order dated 09.02.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting Form 7-A filed under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) confirmed in appeal by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘KAT’) in Appeal No.628/2007 dated 30.11.2015.

2. Mother of the petitioner – late Marli Poojarthi was cultivating certain lands as tenant under the father of respondent No.2 by name Ramakrishna Kamath. She filed application in Form 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of three lands. The said application, upon inquiry was partly allowed granting occupancy rights in respect of two survey numbers and was rejected in respect of Sy. No.67/2. This order was passed on 29.08.1980.

3. After the amendment to the Act, by which Section 77-A was incorporated, mother of the petitioner filed application in Form 7-A claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos.67/2 and 68/2. She died during the pendency of the said application. Petitioner came on record before the Land Tribunal.

4. Petitioner claims to have filed an application seeking amendment of the application filed in Form 7-A to replace Sy. No.189/4 in the place of Sy.No.68/2. It has to be noticed here that Sy. No.68/2 measured 44 cents, whereas Sy. No.189/4 measured 5 acre 1 cent. There was no ambiguity with regard to survey numbers and their boundaries. However, petitioner wanted to replace a different survey number by amending Form 7-A.

5. This application filed seeking amendment was rejected on 09.02.2007. On the same day, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the final order, thereby rejecting the application filed under Section 77-A holding that there was no material placed before him to show that petitioner was a tenant as on 01.03.1974 and the land stood vested in the State. This order was challenged in appeal before the KAT. The KAT has dismissed the appeal.

6. KAT has found that petitioner had availed the opportunity of seeking grant of occupancy rights earlier by filing Form 7. Therefore, there was no justification for the petitioner to again seek occupancy rights by filing Form 7-A under the amendment provision i.e., Section 77-A of the Act. In this background, petitioner has approached this Court challenging both these orders.

7. Main contention urged is that application filed seeking amendment to replace Sy. No.189/4 in place of Sy. No.68/2 has not been considered while passing the main order; that rejection of application filed in Form 7 was in respect of different survey number and not those claimed by the petitioner by filing Form 7-A; and that there was no application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent-owner strongly refutes the aforesaid contentions and justifies the order passed. He points out that at no point of time, petitioner or her mother were tenants in respect of Sy. No.68/2 or Sy. No.67/2, let alone in respect of Sy. No.189/4, for which no claim had been made. He submits that amendment application was not maintainable in a proceeding under Section 77-A. He relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of LOKAYYA POOJARY & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS – 2013(1) AKR 555 to urge that scope of enquiry before the Assistant Commissioner was limited.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate also supports the impugned order.

10. Having heard the learned Counsel for all the parties, I find that petitioner has not produced Form 7 filed by her mother earlier. It is not in dispute that Form 7 was filed in respect of three lands which included Sy. Nos.57/3 and 67/2. So far as Sy. No.57/3 is concerned, she has been granted occupancy rights. In so far as Sy. No.67/2 was concerned, her application was rejected. This order was passed by the Land Tribunal on 29.08.1980. Mother of the petitioner was satisfied with the said order. She did not challenge the same. Therefore, rejection of the application