A post-vesting sale cannot convey title to land already vested in the State.

The dispute concerned 1 acre 9 guntas in Survey No. 15/1 at Kurubarahalli Village. The petitioners, legal representatives of Govindaiah, claimed through a registered sale deed dated 2 April 1975 in favour of Narasamma, wife of Puttaiah.

Narasamma, wife of Narasimhaiah, had sought occupancy rights in the land. Following earlier proceedings and a remand by the High Court, the Special Deputy Commissioner granted occupancy rights to her; the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ appeal and affirmed that grant.

The petitioners sought to quash both orders, contending that the sale deed supported their claim and that the remand directions had not been followed.

1. Whether the grant of occupancy rights to Narasamma, wife of Narasimhaiah, and the Tribunal’s decision affirming it were illegal or perverse.

2. Whether the 1975 sale deed in favour of the petitioners’ predecessor conferred a right, title, or interest in the land despite its prior vesting in the State.

3. Whether the matter required remand because the competent authority had failed to comply with the earlier High Court directions.

The Court referred to the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, and the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Rules, 1956, under which the occupancy-rights application had been considered.

It applied the principle that once land has vested in the State, a subsequent sale cannot transfer a right, title, or interest in that land.

The Court also treated evidence of cultivation and the revenue records as relevant to determining entitlement to occupancy rights.

The Court found that the land had vested in the State and that the 1975 sale deed relied on by the petitioners post-dated that vesting; accordingly, it could not convey an interest in the land to their predecessor.

It also noted that the revenue records stood in the name of Narasimhaiah and that the competent authority had found Narasamma, wife of Narasimhaiah, to have cultivated the land during the relevant period.

On the record before it, the Court found no perversity or illegality in the authorities’ decisions and declined to interfere.

The orders granting occupancy rights to Narasamma, wife of Narasimhaiah, and affirming that grant were left undisturbed.