Karnataka HC Upholds Fresh Inquiry Into Family’s 17-Gunta Land Claim, Finding No Record Of An Assistant Commissioner’s Inquiry

The petitioners challenged the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal’s order allowing respondents 3–8’s appeal and remitting the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry.

The dispute concerned an order granting occupancy rights under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

The petitioners contended that their father possessed 17 guntas in Survey No. 27 and that the Assistant Commissioner’s order was valid; the State relied on revenue records indicating cultivation of only 2 guntas.

The Tribunal had set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order, which appeared to be a standard-form order, because it did not disclose that an enquiry had been conducted.

Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 requires the officer deciding an application for occupancy rights under that provision to conduct an enquiry.

In writ jurisdiction, the High Court need not interfere with an appellate order that merely sets aside an inadequately supported decision and remits the matter for the required enquiry; the parties’ substantive questions may be left open for determination by the authority on remand.

The Assistant Commissioner’s order did not indicate that an enquiry had been held and appeared to be a standard-form order, while Section 77-A requires an enquiry.

The Tribunal therefore acted properly in setting aside that order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Because the remand required the Assistant Commissioner to conduct the necessary enquiry, the High Court found no justification to interfere; the competing claims regarding the extent of land were left open for the remand proceedings.

It dismissed the writ petition, left all questions open for consideration by the Assistant Commissioner on remand, and made no order as to costs.