A party claiming occupancy rights must provide authentic documentation; the reliance on disputed or fabricated orders leads to dismissal of such claims.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, C.J.

1. The appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal impugning an order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10441/2020 (LR).

2. Respondent No.1 (hereafter, referred to as 'the respondent') had filed the aforementioned writ petition assailing an order dated 24.08.1981 [hereafter referred to as ‘Order A’] passed by respondent No.2 [the Land Tribunal] in case No.LRF(B)1796/1974-75.

3. In terms of the impugned order– Order A –the Land Tribunal had rejected the application of the respondent's father to register him as Adhibhogadar in respect of land measuring 2 acres and 4 guntas falling in Survey No.69 and 14 guntas falling in Survey No.64 in Dommasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk [subject land]. The Land Tribunal held that the subject land was covered under the Inams Abolition Act, 1977 and an order was passed in Case No.4043/67.

4. It is the respondent's case that he was cultivating the subject land as a tenant under the Jodidhar namely, late Y.Thimmaiah, Y. Appaji and others. He had filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights, which was allowed by the Land Tribunal in terms of an order 24.08.1981 in proceedings bearing No.LRF(B)1796/1974-75. The respondent claimed that the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in respect of land falling in Survey No.69 to the extent of 1 acre 32 guntas and in Survey No.64 to the extent of 6 guntas, in his favour. Thus, the controversy essentially revolves around two orders dated 24.08.1981: Order A, which was annexed as Annexure-A to the petition, and another order of the same date (annexed as Annexure-B to the petition) [hereafter, referred to as 'Order B']. Whereas in terms of Order A, the respondent's application was accepted in terms of Order B.

5. The learned Single Judge had observed that Order B (order dated 24.08.1981 annexed as Annexure B to the writ petition) is part of the original records and the grant of occupancy rights were also reflected in the RTC extracts. On the aforesaid basis, the writ petition was allowed.

The Context

6. The appellant claims that one Sri Yele Narayanappa was the original Jodidhar. The appellant relies on an order dated 03.01.1964 passed by the court of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Kolar, under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 in Case No.4043/63-64. In terms of the said order Sri Yele Narayanappa, was registered as an occupant in respect of lands falling in Survey No.69 to the extent of 1 acre and 17 guntas, which included 13 guntas of Kharab land. Copy of the said order dated 03.01.1964 has been produced and indicates that Sri Yele Narayanappa was registered as an occupant of certain lands, which included the lands to the extent of 2 acres and 4 guntas falling in Survey No.69 of the village in question. The appellant claimed his rights through Sri Yele Narayanappa. He states that Sri Yele Narayanappa expired intestate and was survived by his six sons: Y. Appaji, Y. Thammaiah, Y. Shivappa, Y. Rajshekhar, Y. Chandrasekhar and Y. Puttaiah.

7. It is the appellant's case that the application filed by the respondent in Form No.7 under the Karnataka LAND REFORMS ACT , 1961 [the LAND REFORMS ACT ] was rejected by the Land Tribunal in terms of Order A (order dated 24.08.1981). However, it appears that the name of the respondent was entered in the RTC records. The sons of Sri Y.Appaji, that is, the g