Claimants must prove personal cultivation for three years before the vesting date to establish occupancy rights under Section 6A of the Act.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners are assailing the order of respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner who has proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioners seeking grant occupancy rights under the provisions of the Mysuru (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 ( for short "the Act, 1955").

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

It is not in dispute that the lands in question are the Inam lands and petitioners are claiming to be the Archaks of Sri Someshwara Swamy Devaru and Sri Kadu Basaveshwara Swamy Devaru. Petitioners' fathers after abolition of the Act, 1955 by asserting that they are the Archaks and cultivating the petition lands filed applications under Section 6A of the Act, 1955. Petitioners asserted that they are cultivating the land in question and therefore, they are entitled for grant of occupancy rights.

3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.15705/1994, the Land Tribunal, Maddur, referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the petitioners' claim for grant of occupancy rights as Archaks of the above said temples. The Deputy Commissioner on an enquiry found that there were no documents to substantiate petitioners' cultivation continuously for a period of three years prior to the vesting of the lands in question and has accordingly rejected their applications. The said order dated 25.8.2012 is questioned by filing this writ petition in 2013.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has placed heavy reliance on the proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar which is confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner evidenced at Annexures-A and B. Citing this order, he would point out that petitioners' status as archaks is substantiated in the order itself. Therefore, he would contend that petitioners are able to substantiate that they were cultivating the lands in question as Archaks and therefore, they are entitled for grant of occupancy rights.

5. In the present case, the petitioners have primarily relied upon certain documents, including revenue records, to establish their claim. However, a crucial aspect that weighs against their claim is the fact that their names were only mutated in the revenue records after the year 1970. The proceedings heavily relied upon by the petitioners also indicate that they were recognized as Archaks only from the year 1970 onwards and continued in that capacity until 1983. This timeline is of significant consequence because, under the provisions of the Act, 1955, particularly Section 6A , an Archak or Poojari claiming tenancy rights in agricultural lands attached to a religious institution must demonstrate that he was personally cultivating the land for a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the date of vesting. The State Government, by exercising its authority under Section 1(4) of the Act, 1955, brought the said Act into force by appointing the date of vesting as 1.7.1970. Thus, for a claim under Section 6A to be considered, the petitioners must provide substantive evidence proving that they had been engaged in personal cultivation of the land prior to 1.7.1970.

6. The statutory requirement under Section 6A is explicit in mandating that the claimant must prove personal cultivation, either through his own physical labor or that of his family members, for a continuous period of three years preceding the date of vesting. In the present case, despite the prolonged pendency of this matter since 2013, the petitioners have been unable to furnish any conclusive documentary evidence that could substantiate their assertion of having cultivated the lands in question prior to 1.7.1970. The absence of such material evidence fundamentally weakens their claim, as the very premise of their entitlement under Section 6A hinges upon the establishment of personal cultivation within the stipulated timeframe.

7. The Deputy Commissioner, after examining the petitioners’ claim in light of th