Extension of the statutory filing period invalidates resumption based solely on failure to apply for occupancy rights.

The petitioner’s father was recorded as the inamdar of lands in Survey No. 11 of Alamkeri Village and Survey No. 3 of Dattankeri Village; after his death, the petitioner’s mother’s name appeared in the revenue records, followed by mutations in the petitioner’s name in 2010.

Following a complaint, the Assistant Commissioner found that no application for re-grant or occupancy rights had been filed and ordered the lands resumed and the Government’s name entered in the records on 30 March 2011.

After an amendment extended the period for filing applications, the petitioner applied for occupancy rights in Form No. 1 on 7 July 2022.

He challenged the Assistant Commissioner’s order and sought consideration of his application.

Whether the Assistant Commissioner’s 30 March 2011 order could stand after the statutory amendment extending the time for applying for occupancy rights.

Whether the petitioner’s 7 July 2022 application was required to be placed before the competent authority for consideration under the amended Act.

Section 11(1) of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 governs applications for registration of occupancy rights.

The Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No. 5 of 2022) amended the time limit in Section 11(1), substituting the former deadline with “within one year from the date of commencement” of the amending Act.

An application filed within the extended period must be considered by the Land Tribunal or other competent authority in accordance with law; the court does not itself determine entitlement to occupancy rights.

The 2011 order directed resumption substantially on the basis that no application for re-grant or occupancy rights had been filed.

The subsequent amendment extended the statutory period, and the petitioner filed an application in 2022 pursuant to that amendment.

In light of that change, the court held that the Assistant Commissioner’s finding could not be sustained and that the application required consideration by the authority with jurisdiction.

The court left the merits of the occupancy-rights claim to that authority.

It directed the Secretary, Land Tribunal, Bidar, to place the petitioner’s application before the Land Tribunal or other competent authority, which must decide it in accordance with law within four months of receiving the court’s order.

The petitioner is not to be dispossessed from the lands until the application is considered; no costs were ordered.