Occupancy rights must be granted when inam-land tenancy is established and gomal classification is unsupported.

The petitioners, legal representatives of Lakamma, claimed that Lakamma’s husband, Honnaiah, had been a tenant of two acres in Sy. No. 65, Kammasandra Village, held as jodi inam land.

They relied on a patta receipt and revenue records showing Honnaiah’s name, and asserted that his tenancy continued under Section 9A of the Mysore Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954.

After Honnaiah’s death, Lakamma applied for registration of occupancy rights in Form 7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Following an initial rejection, a Tribunal remand, and a further rejection by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 19 March 2016, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ appeal on 29 July 2019 and their review petition on 6 November 2019.

The authorities treated the land as gomal land; the petitioners disputed that classification.

Whether the authorities erred in treating the subject land as gomal land despite the evidence that it was jodi inam land.

Whether the petitioners’ evidence of Honnaiah’s tenancy and Lakamma’s Form 7A application justified granting the claimed occupancy-right relief without a further remand.

Section 9A of the Mysore Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954, was invoked in relation to the continuation of the alleged tenancy in inam land; Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, provided the basis for Lakamma’s Form 7A application.

The Court also relied on Nadakerappa (D) by LRs v. Pillamma (D) by LRs, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 387, for the principle that where the material on record is sufficient to reach a conclusion, the Court may decide the matter rather than order a further remand.

The Court considered the patta receipt and revenue material, which identified Honnaiah as a pattedar and the village as a jodi inam village.

It found no documentary material supporting the authorities’ conclusion that the subject land was gomal land, while the record supported the petitioners’ claim that Honnaiah had cultivated the land as a tenant under the inamdar.

In light of that evidence and the absence of rival claims, the Court held that the authorities had erred in rejecting the application.

Applying Nadakerappa, it concluded that the available record permitted a final determination without another remand.

It directed the respondent authorities to issue a grant certificate to the petitioners based on the Form 7 application filed by Lakamma, and directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to enter the petitioner’s name in the revenue records for the subject land.