Occupancy rights cannot be granted based on mere assertions in Form 7 without supporting revenue records or documentary evidence of tenancy, especially when records indicate self-cultivation and the applicant has failed to utilize multiple opportunities for evidence.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.02.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN W.P. NO.17820/2007; CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.08.2007 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.01.2026, THIS DAY, B. MURALIDHARA PAI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

The Respondent No.3 herein had maintained W.P. No.17820/2007 (LR) before this Court, for the following reliefs:

“Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the relevant records and :-

i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 1.8.2007 bearing No.KLR/OCP/SR-81+ 62+73+74/ Ankale passed by Respondent No.2, the Land Tribunal, Khanapur, as per Annexure-A as illegal and void.

ii) Issue a consequential direction to the Land Tribunal, Respondent No.2 to register the Petitioner as tenant to the land in question by granting occupancy rights by allowing Form No.7.”

The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition vide Order dated 24.02.2022 and remitted the case to the Land Tribunal, Khanapur (in short, ‘the Tribunal’), for fresh determination after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to adduce their oral and documentary evidence.

Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein have preferred this appeal.

Sri Jagadish Patil, learned Counsel for the Appellants, fervently submitted that Respondent No.2, after considering the materials on record, rejected the application filed by Respondent No.3 and passed the order after conducting proceedings in accordance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 . He submitted that the revenue records show that the Appellants are in possession and cultivation of the disputed lands and that the legal representatives of the original applicant adduced no oral or documentary evidence to establish their alleged tenancy or right to claim occupancy rights. Thus, there was no valid ground for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the Tribunal's order rejecting the application for conferment of occupancy rights.

Per contra, Sri Prasadkumar Gunaki, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3, vigorously submitted that the Tribunal's order violated Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, as Respondent No.3 was not given proper opportunity to substantiate his claim with additional evidence, and the Tribunal did not consider the additional evidence already placed on record before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. He contended that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application despite oral and documentary evidence on record, especially when the Appellants adduced no evidence to disprove the claim. In these circumstances, he argued, the Learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, produced the entire record of proceedings before Respondent No.2 and submitted that the impugned order prejudices neither party, as both will have sufficient opportunity to agitate the matter before the Tribunal, the proper forum to decide the issue.

Admittedly, the father of Respondent No.3 namely Sri Bhimanna Appu Goral, filed an application before the Tribunal praying for grant of occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing S.No.41/8 measuring 38 guntas, S.No.41/6 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas, S.No.41/4 measuring 6 guntas, and S.No.41/5 measuring 35 guntas, situated at Ankale Village, Khanapur Taluk. Initially, the application was allowed in part on 02.06.1977, granting occupancy rights in resp