A prior claim of ownership by adverse possession is inconsistent with a later claim to occupancy as a tenant.

The petitioners, heirs of M. Muniyappa, challenged the Land Tribunal’s order granting respondent No. 3 occupancy rights over land in Ganakallu Village.

Their father had purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 26 April 1971.

In an earlier civil suit, respondent No. 3 claimed ownership by adverse possession; the court declared Muniyappa the owner and directed respondent No. 3 to deliver possession.

The Tribunal nevertheless granted respondent No. 3 occupancy rights by order dated 29 March 2023, prompting this writ petition.

Whether respondent No. 3 established that he cultivated the land as a tenant so as to qualify for occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Whether the Land Tribunal’s order granting occupancy rights could stand in light of respondent No. 3’s earlier pleadings and the civil court decree.

Under Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the relevant inquiry was whether respondent No. 3 was a deemed tenant; cultivation or possession alone did not establish tenancy.

The Court relied on Parameshwar Timmayya Hegde and Others v. Venkataraman Manjappa Hegde (since deceased by his LRs) and Others, ILR 2000 KAR 3170, for the principle that a claimant seeking occupancy rights must prove cultivation as a tenant under the landlord, and that mere cultivation is insufficient.

The respondent’s reliance on Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and Koraga Marakalu & Another v. Smt. Kamala & Others, AIR 1988 KAR 123, did not alter the Court’s conclusion on the facts.

Respondent No. 3’s written statement in the earlier civil suit asserted ownership and title by adverse possession, but did not claim that he was a tenant under the landlord.

The civil court subsequently declared Muniyappa the owner and directed respondent No. 3 to restore possession.

The High Court held that these pleadings and the decree were inconsistent with the Tribunal’s finding of tenancy.

Further, respondent No. 3’s alleged cultivation, without proof that it was as a tenant, could not satisfy the requirement for occupancy rights.

The Tribunal’s decision was therefore contrary to the record and the governing legal principles.

It directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to enter the petitioners’ names in the revenue records for the subject land; the pending interlocutory application was held not to survive.