KAMAR SAB vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R

TH
DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

WRIT APPEAL NO. 2332 OF 2017 (LR)

BETWEEN:

KAMAR SAB
S/O. MOHAMMED KHASIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT BANAVARAPETE, ARESIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MILIND DANGE,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN.

Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
B. S. AMEER JAN
DIED ON 13/09/2014
BY HIS LRS.,

SMT. ZAKIRA BI,
SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

MRS.MUJEEBA PARVEEN,
D/O LATE B.S.AMEER JAN,
W/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
R/O KANCHIGARA BEEDI,
CHANNRAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.

2.

2A.

2A(I)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

2A(II)

2A(III)

2A(IV)

2A(V)

2A(VI)
MRS.NAJEEBA PARVEEN,
D/O LATE B.S.AMEER JAN,
W/O S AKBAR,
R/O BOOTHANAGADI ROAD, BEHIND HOSPITAL,
BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT. BHADRAVATHI.

MRS. RAKUBA PARVEEN,
D/O LATE B.S.AMEER JAN,
W/O NAFEESA AHAMAD,
R/O TIPPU NAGARA, CHIKKAMANGALURU.

MRS.MUMTAZ PARVEEN,
D/O B.S.AMEER JAN,
W/O MOHAMMAD HYDER,
R/O SUNNICHOWKA, ARASIKERE,
HASSAN DISTRICT.

MRS.RESHMA BANU PARVEEN,
D/O B.S.AMEER JAN,
W/O AKRAM PASHA,
R/O AJJAMPURA TALUK, TARIKERE.

MRS.NAZIGA PARVEEN
D/O B.S.AMEER JAN,
W/O RAJEEN HUSEEN,
R/O SANTHEPETE, OLD MILL ROAD, TUMKUR.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 24.08.2026.

2(B) B. A. ANWAR HUSSAIN
S/O. LATE B. S. AMEER JAN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

2(C) B. A. ADIL HUSSAIN
S/O. LATE B.S. AMEER JAN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/AT PETE BANAVARA,
KODHI MATTA ROAD, ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.BYRE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SMT. SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR R2(B & C)(VC))

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDR PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 7273/2008 DATED 03/03/2017.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN)

The Petitioner has approached this Court, calling in
question the Order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the
Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7273/2008 (LR), wherein
the Learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition
and affirmed the order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ( ‘Tribunal’ ) in an inquiry
conducted under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961 ( ‘Act’ ); and thereby, set aside the
order dated 21.12.2002 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Hassan.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to in their respective ranks assigned to them
before the Learned Single Judge.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

3. Shorn of the details, the brief facts as urged by
the Petitioner would be that as on 01.03.1974 (the date of
commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms
(Amendment) Act, 1977), the Petitioner’s father was the
tenant of Respondent No. 2 and was cultivating the
tenanted land to an extent of 2 acres 15 guntas in Survey
No. 118 of Byragondanahalli Village, BanavaraHobli,
Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District ( ‘Subject Land’ ). To
substantiate his stand, the Petitioner places reliance on
the Record of Rights ( ‘RTC’ ) for the years 1965-66 to
1996-97, wherein the name of the Petitioner’s father is
stated to be shown as the tenant in Column No. 12(2),
followed by the Petitioner’s name being so shown on the
death of the Petitioner’s father.

4. On 09.02.1999, the Petitioner’s father is stated
to have made an application under Form 7-A on the
strength of Section 77-A of the Act, which came to be
numbered as LRF/94/99-2000.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

5. On hearing the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2
and on the conduct of a spot inspection in the presence of
the Tahsildar and statements of the locals, the Assistant
Commissioner concluded that as on 01.03.1974, the
Petitioner’s father was in possession and cultivation of the
Subject Land, and after the death of the Petitioner’s
father, the Petitioner was in possession and cultivation of
the Subject Land. Therefore, vide order dated 21.12.2002,
the Assistant Commissioner ordered the tenancy be
decided in favour of the Petitioner under Section 45(1) of
the Act.
6. We may also note that during the pendency of
the Assistant Commissioner’s decision on LRF/94/99-2000,
Respondent No. 2 filed a suit for permanent injunction in
O.S. No. 282/2000 against the Petitioner, which came to
be dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2002. The challenge
preferred by Respondent No. 2 against the order of
dismissal in the above civil suit, was also dismissed by the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

appellate court vide order dated 13.11.2006, in R.A. No.
77/2002.

7. Not being satisfied with the Assistant
Commissioner’s order dated 21.12.2002, Respondent No.
2 has challenged the same before the Tribunal. The
Petitioner has also raised a contention that Respondent
No. 2, having failed before the civil court, is precluded
from challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner’s
before the Tribunal.

8. At this juncture, it would be required to
appreciate the case of Respondent No.2 (Landlord of the
Subject Land). To deny the existence of tenancy rights of
the Petitioner as on 01.03.1974, Respondent No.2 has
primarily leveled a two-pronged attack. First, that the
Subject Land was being cultivated by Respondent No. 2’s
father and after his death, by Respondent No. 2 himself.
To substantiate this fact, Respondent No. 2 has placed
reliance upon the RTC’s for the years 1965-66 to 1996-97,

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

wherein under Column No. 12(3), the status of cultivation
is shown as ‘swantha’ (own).

9. Second, that the Petitioner’s father had been
cultivating the Subject Land on a ‘coolie’ basis. It is stated
that the coolie was a person by the name of “Bendikere
Khasim Sab”, whereas the Petitioner’s father’s name is
“Mohammed Khasim Sab”. As such, the Petitioner is
alleged to have taken advantage of the similarity of his
father’s name with that of the actual coolie and is claiming
rights to which the Petitioner is not entitled. Respondent
No. 2 has also stated that the Petitioner has not provided
any document to show that the Petitioner was cultivating
the Subject Land as a tenant.

10. That apart, Respondent No. 2 has also
impugned the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to
consider the case under Section 77-A of the Act. Further,
Respondent No. 2 has stated that the procedure for
enquiry contemplated under Rule 26-C of the Karnataka

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

Land Reform Rules, 1974 ( ‘Rules’ ) and Section 34 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, has not been adhered
to by the Assistant Commissioner before issuing the order
dated 21.12.2002, in so far as the Assistant Commissioner
has not issued a notice to Respondent No. 2 before
conducting the spot inspection.

11. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 filed Appeal No.
517/2003, impugning the Assistant Commissioner’s order
dated 21.12.2002. Accepting the stand of Respondent No.
2, the Tribunal, vide order dated 27.02.2008, has set
aside the above order of the Assistant Commissioner by
observing that the Petitioner has failed to establish that as
on 01.03.1974, the Petitioner was the tenant and was
cultivating the Subject Land, in order to trigger the
applicability of Section 77-A of the Act.

12. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the
Petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition, wherein the
Learned Single Judge has affirmed the findings of the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

Tribunal and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is against this
order of the Learned Single Judge that the Petitioner has
knocked the doors of this Court.

13. We have heard Sri. Milind Dange, Learned
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sri. N. Byre Gowda,
Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, and
Smt. Sona Vakkund, Learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 2, and have assiduously perused the
records before us.

14. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the learned
Single Judge has wrongly placed emphasis on whether the
Petitioner himself was the tenant in cultivation of the
Subject Land as on 01.03.1974. Rather, since the
Petitioner claims a right over the Subject Land on the
basis of his father, the question to be answered is whether
the Petitioner’s father was the tenant in cultivation of the
Subject Land as on 01.03.1974.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

15. We may also note that the proceedings before
us have germinated out of the proceedings before the
Assistant Commissioner, that is governed by Section 77-A
of the Act read with Rule 26-C of the Rules. In this regard,
a Full Bench of this Court in Lokayya Poojary and Anr.
1
v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , after an elaborate
appraisal of the legislative intent of Section 77-A of the
Act, has held that the scope of enquiry under Section 77-A
of the Act is not extended to determine the existence of
the tenancy; rather, it is to determine whether the
applicant was in possession and cultivation of the subject
land before 01.03.1974 and whether the said applicant
continued to be in possession and cultivation on the date
of commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms
(Amendment) Act, 1997, with effect from 01.11.1998.
However, both the Tribunal and the Learned Single Judge
seem to have lost light of the scope of the inquiry before
them.

1
ILR 2012 KAR 4345
.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

16. It is in consideration of the observations of the
Full-Bench that we now proceed to analyze as to whether
the order of the Learned Single Judge deserves any
interference.

17. As such, in order to succeed in this intra-court
appeal, the Petitioner has to pass the scrutiny of the twin-
test, the essentials of which are as follows:
(i) “Whether the Petitioner’s father was in actual
possession and in cultivation of the Subject Land
before 01.03.1974?

(ii) If issue (i) is answered in the positive, then
whether the Petitioner’s father or the Petitioner
were in possession and cultivation of the Subject
Land until the date of commencement of the
Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997,
with effect from 01.11.1998, whereby Section 77-
A was inserted?”

18. We may note here that as per the observations
of the Full Bench in Lokayya Poojary (supra), the
question of the Petitioner being a tenant in cultivation of
the Subject Land as on 01.03.1974 needs to be an
undisputed fact. All that the Petitioner is required to do is
to show the existence of the undisputed fact. In this

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

regard, the Petitioner must, firstly, produce some official
documents, be it in the form of Land Revenue Receipts,
RTC, Mutation Records, or any other official document, to
show that his father was in possession and in self-
cultivation of the Subject Land before 01.03.1974.

19. The Petitioner has produced RTC’s from the
years 1965-66 to 1996-97 for the Subject Land. It is
pertinent to note that Column No. 12(2) in the RTC
contains the particulars of the cultivator. On a careful
perusal Column 12(2) of the RTC’s for the said period, it is
discerned that even prior to 01.03.1974, the name of one
Khasim Sab is mentioned.

20. The Learned Single Judge has failed to
appreciate this fact and instead, has relied upon the
averments made by Respondent No. 2 in his Statement of
Objections. In his Statement of Objections, Respondent
No. 2 contends that his father was cultivating the land
through a coolie and thus, the question of tenancy does

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

not arise. Respondent No. 2 also avers that the coolie
employed by his father was a person by the name of
“Bendikere Khasim Sab”, whereas the Petitioner’s father’s
name is “Mohammed Khasim Sab”. As such, it is the
contention of Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner’s father
was not in possession and cultivation of the Subject Land
as on the appointed date of 01.03.1974.

21. We may note here that the Respondent No. 2
had taken a similar contention before the Assistant
Commissioner. In this regard, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the observations of the Assistant Commissioner:
“
CfðzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ ªÀÄºÀªÀÄäzï SÁ¹A ¸Á©gÀªÀgÀÄ
¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.03.1953 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è ²æÃ ªÀÄºÀªÀÄäzï µÀjÃ¥sï
¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀªÀjAzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.120 gÀ°è 0-32 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß
PÀæAiÀÄªÁV PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀPÉÌ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ gÀ¹Ã¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. G¨sÀAiÀÄ
¥ÁnðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ °TvÀ ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÉ.
¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÉÊgÀUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î ¸À.£ÀA.118 gÀ°è£À PÁ®A £ÀA.12
gÀ°è zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ SÁ¹ÃA ¸Á©gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À
vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ®èªÉAzÀÆ, ¨ÉAqÉÃPÉgÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÉÆÛ§âgÀÄ SÁ¹ÃA ¸Á©
JA§ÄªÀªÀjgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÆ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ
ªÉÆÃdtÂzÁgÀjAzÀ ¤dªÁzÀ s¸Áé¢üÃ£Á£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ JA§
§UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¯ÁV, CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ RªÀÄ¯ï¸Á¨ï ©£ï
ªÀÄºÀªÀÄäzï SÁ¹ÃA ¸Á©gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨sÉÊgÀUÉÆAqÀ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ
¸À.£ÀA.118 gÀ°è 2-06 JPÀgÉ ¥ÀæzÉÃ¸ÀzÀ°è ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀ

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C®èzÉ gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀ
ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ PÁ®¢AzÀ®Æ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 50
ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÁV
w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30-11-2002 gÀAzÀÄ
vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÉÆqÀ£É «ªÁ¢vÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¸ÀÜ¼À vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁr
«ªÁ¢vÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¨ÁdÆzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 1-3-
1974 gÀ ¤PÀl ¥ÀÆªÀðzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀ
ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ zsÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ
”
DzÉÃ±À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

22. As can be seen, the Assistant Commissioner
had received information from a Surveyor that the
Petitioner’s father (Mohammed Khasim Sab) was indeed
the person who was in possession of the Subject Land.
Additionally, the Assistant Commissioner had also received
a report from the revenue inspector that the Petitioner was
in possession of the Subject Land from the time of his
father, for the past fifty years.

23. The Assistant Commissioner also relied on a
spot inspection conducted on 30.11.2002 in the presence
of the Tahsildar, which involved the recording of
statements from the local villagers. Herein, it was
apparent that the Petitioner’s father was in possession of
the Subject Land from a time that is prior to 01.03.1974.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

When the spot inspection re-affirmed that the Petitioner
was in possession and cultivation of the Subject Land as
on the date of the spot inspection (i.e., 30.11.2002), it
would be the natural course of events that the Petitioner
was in possession and cultivation of the Subject Land as
on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land
Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997 (i.e., on 01.11.1998).

24. It is based on such a meticulous confirmation
and re-confirmation procedure that the Assistant
Commissioner was satisfied that the Petitioner continued
to be in possession and cultivation of the Subject Land.
However, both the Tribunal and the Learned Single Judge
have failed to appreciate this aspect.

25. Before the Learned Single Judge, another
challenge which Respondent No. 2 has raised to the
findings of the Assistant Commissioner is that Respondent
No. 2 was not given a notice for the conduct of the said
spot inspection. We may note here that Rule 26(3) of the

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

Rules provides for an individual and a public notice to be
given by the Tahsildar. We may also note that the order of
the Assistant Commissioner was passed after giving a due
opportunity of being heard to Respondent No. 2, who had
also filed his written submissions therein. In light thereof,
we are not inclined to accept this contention of
Respondent No. 2.

26. That apart, the RTC’s provided by Respondent
No. 2 himself before the Learned Single Judge would show
that for the years 1970-71, the name of the Petitioner’s
father was mentioned in Column No. 12(2). Thereafter,
until the year 1973-74 and even for subsequent years,
Column No. 12(2) has the words ‘sadara’ (same). This
would show that the Petitioner’s fathers name finds
mention in Column No. 12(2) of the RTC in the year which
contains the date of 01.03.1974; thereby, showing that
the Petitioner’s father was in possession and cultivation of
the Subject Land even prior to 01.03.1974.

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

27. On examination of the order of the Tribunal, it
is apparent that the reasoning for the Tribunal to hold
against the Petitioner is because the Petitioner’s name was
not shown in the RTC. We may note here that both the
Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are claiming their
respective rights over the Subject Land based on their
respective fathers’ rights over the Subject Land.

28. In this context, we may note the observations
of the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes that the name of
Respondent No. 2’s father (original landlord) was present
in the RTC, and on the death of the father, the name of
Respondent No. 2(landlord in succession) is mentioned in
the RTC. However, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate
that the name of the Petitioner’s father was mentioned in
Column No. 12(2) of the RTC for the year containing the
date of 01.03.1974 and for the years even prior to the said
date, as far back as 1965-66. It is after the death of the
Petitioner’s father that the Petitioner’s name came to be
recorded in the RTC from the year 1988-89 onwards.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

29. The fallacy in the order of the Tribunal is that,
on the one hand, it affirms the claim of Respondent No. 2,
which Respondent No. 2 claims through his father, and on
the other hand, rejects the claim of the Petitioner, which
the Petitioner claims through his father. In our opinion, it
is this fallacy that must be put to rest.

30. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner
has not only relied on the entries in the RTC but has also
received information from the surveyor that it was none
other than the Petitioner’s father, who was in possession
and cultivation of the Subject Land. The Assistant
Commissioner did not stop at the surveyor’s information
but had also sought for a report from the revenue
inspector, which stated that the Petitioner was in
possession of the Subject Land for the past fifty years,
dating back to the time of the Petitioner’s father.

31. Despite the availability of such corroborating
material, the Assistant Commissioner has additionally

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

relied upon a spot inspection conducted in the presence of
the Tahsildar on 30.11.2002. The on-ground verification
conducted through the spot inspection involved the
recording of statements of the local villagers, wherein it
was re-affirmed that the Petitioner’s father was in
possession of the Subject Land from a time even prior to
the appointed date of 01.03.1974. The date of the spot
inspection being 30.11.2002, it would be pertinent that
the Petitioner continued to be in possession and cultivation
of the Subject Land even as on the date of
commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms
(Amendment) Act, 1997, i.e., on 01.11.1998.

32. It was only upon the rigors of such a meticulous
verification process, that the Assistant Commissioner came
to the considered opinion that the Petitioner’s father
having been in possession and cultivation of the Subject
Land even prior to the appointed date of 01.03.1974, the
Petitioner continued to be in possession of the Subject

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

Land, after the death of his father. Thereby, it was
pertinent to the Assistant Commissioner that the Petitioner
has passed the requirements of the twin-test.

33. It is upon such satisfaction, that the Assistant
Commissioner ordered for the Subject Land to be vested
with the State Government in accordance with Section
44(1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, it was ordered that the
Petitioner be vested with the tenancy rights. It is needless
to state that the satisfaction of the Assistant
Commissioner was not arrived at on the basis of
conjectures but on sufficient corroboratory material.

34. A perusal of the Tribunal’s order would reveal
that the Tribunal has not doubted the correctness or
otherwise of the surveyor’s information, or the revenue
inspector’s report, or the spot inspection. That apart, the
Tribunal has also not relied on any material which could
rebut the findings of the surveyor’s information, or the
revenue inspector’s report, or the spot inspection. With

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

that being the case, the Tribunal could not have disturbed
the well-considered findings of the Assistant
Commissioner.

35. However, both the Tribunal and the Learned
Single Judge have chosen to brush aside these well-
considered findings of the Assistant Commissioner in a
manner that can only be described as unsustainable in
law.

36. It is in light thereof that we find no infirmity
with the well-considered order of the Assistant
Commissioner. In our opinion, the order of the Tribunal
and the order of the Learned Single Judge cannot be
sustained.

37. As such, we proceed to pass the following
order.

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:45809-DB
WA No. 2332 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010175002017

ORDER
(i) The Writ Appeal is allowed ;
(ii) The Order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P. No. 7273/2008 (LR), and the
Order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the Tribunal, are
hereby set aside ; and,
(iii) The Order dated 21.12.2002 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner in LRF/94/99-2000 is hereby
restored.

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE

Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE

KNM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9