Fact-based findings that no tenancy application or occupancy grant existed warrant no writ interference absent perversity.

Kamalabai claimed that she had filed Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights over 23 acres 27 guntas of land at Tadalagi and that the Land Tribunal granted her occupancy rights in 1976.

Respondent No. 2 challenged the grant and Form No. 10 in an earlier writ petition.

The High Court directed the parties to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, who was to inquire into the matter and pass orders; that direction was affirmed in appeal.

Following an inquiry that included a report and records obtained from the Tahasildar, the Deputy Commissioner found that no Form No. 7 had been filed and that no occupancy order had been made.

Hanamantha, as Kamalabai’s legal representative, challenged that finding by writ petition.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner acted impermissibly by relying on the Tahasildar’s report and records instead of conducting the inquiry directed by the High Court.

2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his authority by deciding the correctness of the occupancy grant rather than referring the matter to the Land Tribunal.

3. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s findings warranted interference in the writ petition.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court treated its directions in the earlier writ proceedings—which required the Deputy Commissioner to examine the grievance concerning the alleged absence or fabrication of the tenancy records—as governing the scope of the inquiry; those directions had attained finality after the appeal was dismissed.

The Court assessed whether the Deputy Commissioner’s findings disclosed perversity or error warranting writ interference.

The Court rejected the contention that the Deputy Commissioner had failed to conduct the directed inquiry, noting that he heard the parties, obtained and considered the Tahasildar’s report and Land Tribunal records, and gave detailed reasons.

It also held that the objection to the Deputy Commissioner examining the grant was inconsistent with the earlier directions, which required him to investigate respondent No. 2’s specific allegations that no Form No. 7 had been filed and no occupancy order had been passed; those directions were final.

The Deputy Commissioner’s finding that the claimed filing date, 30 February 1975, was impossible, together with his other stated reasons and the records considered, provided a basis for his conclusion.

The Court found no perversity or error warranting interference.

No further relief was granted.