Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act applies only to undisputed tenanted lands that vested in the Government under Section 44 on 01.03.1974 by operation of law; the tribunal must verify the applicant's continuous possession from 1974 until the 1997 amendment.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2022 IN WP No.7774/2007 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KAT DATED 11.07.2006 IN APPEAL No.109/2005 AND PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.06.2022, passed in W.P.No.7774/2007 (LR).

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the mother of the appellants was the land owner in respect of 2 acres of property in Sy. No.278 of Yelachawadi Village, Maralawadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk. It is submitted that by an order dated 19.10.2004, the Assistant Commissioner, accepted an application filed in Form No.7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') by a person claiming to be a tenant in respect of the property in question. The appellants took up the matter before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short 'KAT). The KAT came to the conclusion that in order to establish that the land could be granted under Section 77A of the Act, there must be an order of the Government stating that the land had stood vested with the State Government and since there was no such order, it could not have been held that the land was tenanted. The said order was challenged before this Court and by the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2022, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to KAT for reconsideration, with a direction to consider whether the tenant was in possession of the land in question from 1973-74 till the date of the amendment introducing Section 77A of the Act and whether the land owners/appellants had got possession of the land in question in the interregnum.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that it is only in respect of the lands which stood vested with the State Government that Section 77A of the Act would have any application. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, relying on the judgment of the full Bench of this Court in Lokayya Poojary and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4345 that in the instant case, since the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was shown as the owner in the RTC's from 1960 onwards, there was no question of vesting of the land with the State Government and therefore, there is no need for any reconsideration and the order of the KAT ought to have been accepted.

5. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, contends that it is clear from the facts, as recorded, that the name of the tenant has been entered as a cultivator in the RTC's from 1970-71 up to 1974-75. It is further submitted that in the coloum pertaining to the mode of cultivation, it is shown as "vaara" and it is indicated that Kenchamuthaiah was the tenant cultivating the land in question at least from 1970-71 up to 1974-75. It is contented that the full Bench has clearly held tha