The court upheld that occupancy rights are determined by procedural integrity and evidence of cultivation, with claims supported by historical tenancy acknowledged.

ORDER :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 15^th March, 2003 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No.3 in Case No.LRF/7A(M)42,43,44/1999-2000 and order dated 13^th May, 2016 (Annexure-E) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.602/2003.

2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner No.1-Venkatamma W/o H.A. Kempaiah claims to have filed Form No.7-A seeking occupancy right in respect of land bearing Survey No.2/2B measuring 38 guntas of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanuru Taluk as per Annexure-A. However, the petitioner No.1 confined her claim to an extent of 13 guntas of land as the remaining 25 guntas of land was the subject matter before this Court in Writ Petition No.5388 of 2002. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner No.1 is a tenant under respondent No.1-Rathnamma.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.2-K. Narayana Gowda S/o H.A. Kempaiah had filed application in Form No.7-A, seeking grant of land bearing Survey No.15/2B measuring 5 acre 12 guntas of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanuru Taluk as per Annexure-B. It is also stated that the respondent No.2 is the landlord/owner of the land bearing Survey No.15/2B measuring 5 acre 12 guntas of Gollahalli Village, Gauribidanur Taluk.

4. It is further stated in the writ petition that the aforementioned applications had been filed by the petitioners claiming occupancy right against two different lands in question and the respondent No.3 has erroneously clubbed the matter together and passed common order dated 15^th March, 2003 (Annexure-C) and therefore, the said aspect of the matter is to be interfered in this writ petition. It is also stated in the writ petition that, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the applications filed by the petitioners, the petitioners have preferred Appeal No.602 of 2003 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, without appreciating the material on record, had dismissed the appeal, by order dated 13^th May, 2016 (Annexure-E). Hence, the petitioners are before this Court, challenging the aforesaid orders in this writ petition.

5. Heard Nitish K.N., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, appearing for petitioners; Sri. Mohan Prasad, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Sunil Kumar Patel, appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. P. Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2(a)(i & ii) and (b to e); Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3.

6. Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the respondent No.3 has committed an error in clubbing two claim applications together and therefore, same is required to be interfered with in this writ petition. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the respondent No.3 has committed an error in rejecting the applications based on the proceedings, which never conducted by non quasi-judicial authorities, and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

7. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that, H.A. Kempaiah, husband of the petitioner No.1 was cultivating the land in question and on his demise, the petitioner No.1 and her children were cultivating the land in question and therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent No.3 is incorrect.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that, insofar as the land bearing Survey No.15/2B measuring 5 acre 12 guntas of Gollahalli Village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gauribidanuru Taluk, the