Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents.

2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal rendered in (Revenue) Appeal No.98/2017 dated 22.02.2018 whereby, the Appellate Tribunal has been pleased to confirm the order of the Authorized Officer and consequently was pleased to dismiss the appeal.

3. The facts in brief are that, the petitioner is the tenant/occupant of the land comprised in Sy.No.146/6 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas and situated in Mallenahalli Village, Talagunda Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District. That the land is in possession and cultivation of the petitioner since the time of his father and that the father of the petitioner omitted to file an application in Form No.7 seeking for confirmation of occupancy rights and that pursuant to the amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) inserting Section 77A (1) the petitioner has preferred an application in Form No.7A on 17.12.1998 seeking for grant of occupancy rights.

4. That the Authorized Officer in proceedings No.L.R.T.7A.CR.01/992000 dated 05.10.2016 after considering the fact that there are no records demonstrating the vesting of the land or the possession and cultivation of the land by the petitioner or his predecessors and also taking into account the fact that the family of the petitioner i.e., the son of the petitioner is holding land in excess of the ceiling limit stipulated under the provisions of Section 77A (1) of the Act has been pleased to reject the application. Upon an appeal, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2018 in (Revenue) Appeal No.98/2017 has been pleased to observes as follows in para Nos.21 and 22:

“21. In this case there are no explanation on behalf of the Appellant even though in the partition taken place father and uncles of the Appellant 3.31 acres land in Sy.No.165/2, 1.39 acres land in Sy.No.173/1, 2.03 acres land in Sy.No.121/2 and 1.37 acres land in Sy.No.8 fell to the share of Giriyappa, father of the Appellant, for what reason on the death of Giriyappa on 28.10.2002 name of Pradeep Kumar S/o Appellant is mentioned/mutated in the records pertaining to lands measuring 1.37 acres bearing Sy.No.8, 2.03 acres, bearing Sy.No.121/2, 3.35 acres bearing Sy.No.165/2, 0.23 acres bearing Sy.No.244 of Mallenahalli Village noting reason as Giriyappa expired leaving Pradeep Kumar S/o Hanumnathappa, grandson as sole heir.

22. This circumstances confirms that to avoid the ceiling limit with extra ordinary effort/object the name of Pradeep Kumar is mutated in the records pertaining to lands measuring 1.37 acres bearing, 2.03 acres, bearing Sy.No.121/2, 3.35 acres bearing Sy.No.165/2, 0.23 acres bearing Sy.No.244 of Mallenahalli Village.”

5. With regard to the fact that the family of the petitioner is holding land in excess of ceiling limit, specified under the provisions to Section 77A (1) of the Act is not disputed. Further, the Tribunal has also upheld the findings in the light of the fact that the appellant and his family members are in possession of land in excess of ceiling limit. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for confirmation of occupancy rights over the disputed property.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contended that the reasoning by the Authorized Officer and the Appellate Tribunal, holding that the applicant is disentitled for confirmation of the occupancy rights on account of holding land in excess of ceiling limit is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the ruling of Smt. Awamma vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur Sub-Division and others reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 3113. He would contend that this Court has held that as the application is made prior to the insertion of provisions on 15.02.1999, the same is inapplicable. This Court respectfully disagrees with the observations made by the coordinate Bench of this Court. It