The court reiterated that compliance with statutory procedures is mandatory for granting occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and any procedural irregularity warrants reconsideration of the case.

ORDER :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.1039/2014 vide Annexure-A, inter alia, sought for confirmation of the order dated 19.04.2010 in the proceedings No.7A/1413/1999-2000 passed by the respondent No.1.

2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of the writ petition are that, one Smt.Tarabai, wife of Sri.Narayana Rao Chandavarakar - grandmother of respondent No.2 was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.14/1 of Talaguppa village to an extent of 2.21 acres. The said Smt.Tarabai has sold an extent of 1 acre of land in favour of the father of the petitioner - P.K. Samuel and his wife Smt. Vanthibai as per registered Sale Deed dated 15.10.1959 (Annexure-B). It is also stated in the petition that, apart from 1 acre of land which was purchased by the father of the petitioner as per the registered Sale Deed referred to above, the father of the petitioner was in possession of remaining extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.14/1, which totally measures 2.21 acres. After the death of the father of the petitioner - P.K. Samuel, the petitioner continued to be in possession to an extent of 2 acres in land bearing Sy.No.14/1. It is also stated that, the RTC extracts as per Annexure-C series stand in the name of the father of the petitioner. In view of the amendment made to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), more particularly, with regard to Sec.77A, the petitioner has filed Form No.7A before the first respondent and the first respondent has conferred occupancy right with respect to Sy.No.14 measuring 1 acre as per order dated 19.04.2010 in case No.7A/1413/99-2000(Annexure-F). Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 has filed appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1039/2014 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by Order dated 26.09.2017 (Annexure-A), allowed the appeal and as such, set aside the order at Annexure-F, dated 19.04.2010, passed by the first respondent. Hence, this petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. I have heard Sri.B.G. Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. R. Gopal, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Sri. B.G. Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the father of the petitioner - P.K. Samuel and his wife Smt. Vanthibai, have purchased an extent of 1 acre out of 2.21 acres in Sy.No.14/1 of Talaguppa Village as per registered Sale Deed at Annexure-B. He further contended that, after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner is in possession of the land to an extent of 1 acre. It is also stated in the petition that the father of the petitioner - P.K. Samuel was in possession of the remaining extent of 1 acre in the very same survey number and therefore the petitioner is in possession of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.14/1. It is also argued that, the father of the petitioner has filed Form No.7A before respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 vide order dated 19.04.2010 has conferred occupancy right vide Annexure-F. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is contrary to records and without considering the fact that the land to an extent of 1 acre has been granted in favour of the father of the petitioner, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order at Annexure-A, which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.

5. Per contra, Sri. R. Gopal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that the respondent No.2 is in possession