Occupancy rights cannot be sustained on a fictitious Form 7 and unsupported revenue records.

The petitioners claimed that Nanja Reddy, their predecessor, had cultivated land in Sy. No. 41, Gulimangala Village, and obtained occupancy rights after filing Form No. 7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

They relied on revenue entries and documents said to include a Form No. 10 occupancy certificate.

The Land Tribunal rejected the claim on 23 March 2018, finding that the claimed Form No. 7 and related records were not genuine.

Earlier proceedings had addressed the revenue entries and remitted the matter for fresh consideration; the present petition challenged the Tribunal’s decision after remand.

During this petition, Indiramma was transposed as petitioner No. 4, while petitioners Nos. 1–3 were dismissed from the case.

1. Whether the Land Tribunal’s finding that Nanja Reddy had not established a genuine Form No. 7 application or grant of occupancy rights was unsupported by the record and liable to be set aside.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 with the Tribunal’s rejection of the occupancy-right claim.

The claim concerned occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the petitioner also relied on Rule 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, concerning custody of village-war records.

The Court’s review proceeded on the basis of the original records and whether the Tribunal’s findings were supported by evidence or showed perversity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227.

It cited Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716, in support of its conclusion on the evidentiary basis for the Tribunal’s findings.

The respondent’s counsel also cited Basappa v. Land Tribunal, Bagalkote Taluk and Others, AIR 1978 Kar 44; the judgment does not identify it as a basis for the Court’s decision.

The Court considered the original village-war register and the documents relied on by the petitioner, alongside the findings in the earlier proceedings.

It noted that the register entry relied on to show a Form No. 7 application lacked the Land Tribunal Secretary’s seal and signature; the Form No. 10 was printed in 1981 despite the alleged grant being dated 1975; and other relied-on documents lacked a case number or competent-authority seal.

The Court also found that the prior orders did not establish a valid occupancy-right grant and that the Tribunal had assessed the original records and relevant material.

It therefore held that the Tribunal’s conclusion was supported by the evidence and was not perverse.