The court emphasized the limited scope of enquiry under Sec. 77-A and the necessity of providing opportunity to the landowner for cross-examination, ultimately setting aside the impugned order as not sustainable in law.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Petitioner-tenant is invoking the writ jurisdiction for assailing the order dtd. 27/8/2012 made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-E whereby the grant of land made by the competent authority under Sec. 77-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has been set at naught. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the same may be quashed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Landlord and the learned HCGP appearing for the official respondents resist the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the being broadly in agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal at paragraph nos. 21, 22 & 23. The same read as under:

"21. It is also significant to note that in none of the RTCs available in LCR it is no where shown as the land vested with the Government. If the land vested with the Government as per the provisions of Sec. 44 of RTC the name of the Government would have been shown in column No.9 of RTCs. However in the spot inspection report prepared by Revenue Inspector and Tahasildar which available at sheet Nos.47,48 and 49 of LCR in page No.3 of the report at sheet No.47 of LCR for the second question regarding the vesting of land with Government it is stated as "Yes". This is in our opinion false one. Because as per the entries made in column No.9 of RTC, available at sheet Nos.1,5, and 7 in respect of Sy.Nos.1/2, 1/3 and 1/8 the name of the appellant entered as the MR No.4/1981-82, MR No.3/1981-82 and MR No.4/1981-82 respectively. If really the land vested with Government how could he enter the name of the appellant in column Nos.9 and 12(2) of RTC. No explanation offered. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the land vested with the Government even then the occupancy right cannot be granted in favour of the R-2 unless his name is shown in cultivators column No.12(2) of RTC with the figure 3 or 4 or 5 as per Revenue code to show that he was cultivating land as tenant. The appellant is entitle for the said lands or when the name of R-2 is not shown in cultivators column No.12(2) of RTC the land should have been continued in the name of the Government alone. When the name of the appellant continued right from the years 1973-74 till 1999-2000 in respect of all the survey numbers as per the RTC referred to above and available in the RTC, when the R-2 failed to produce Geni receips and RTCs showing his name in cultivators column 12(2) and as tenant as on 1/3/1974 till filing of Form -7A application in the year 1999, when the report of the Revenue Inspector and Tahasildar shows it is false report in view of the circumstances discussed above, when the R-2 has stated before R-1 that he has purchased the land about 15 years back under agreement of sale from the owner and the owner refused to execute the sale deed, when the R-2 not produced the said agreement of sale it can be held that grant made in favour of R-2 is illegal and not sustainable in law. If the R-2 had produced the sale agreement and if recital of the sale agreement disclosed the delivery of possession of the lands to the R-2 and his cultivation as tenant prior to the date of agreement even though his name had not been shown in cultivators column of RTC as tenant we would have appreciated. Apart from that the appellant had availed the loan by offering these lands as security for the loan from the Devanahalli Taluk prathamika land Development Co-op. Bank Ltd and Kalpatharu Grameena Bank. No bank would advance loan without verifying the documents and without collecting the document like revenue records and sale deed. The loans availed have been cleared as per the documents produced by the appellants through IA. This also indicated the appellant was and is in possession of the land as owner and the land has not been leased to the R-2 either by vendor of appe