Occupancy rights require proof of cultivation as a tenant on the appointed date.

The petitioners challenged the Land Tribunal, Harihar’s order dated 14 March 2013 rejecting the claim for occupancy rights over lands in Sy. Nos. 156 and 46, Guttur Village.

The Tribunal had reconsidered the matter following a remand by the High Court in W.P. No. 34445 of 2004.

The petitioners asserted that their predecessor had cultivated the lands as a tenant and that an affidavit relied on by the Tribunal had been fraudulently filed by their counsel.

The respondents disputed the tenancy claim, pointing to the absence of the petitioners’ or their predecessor’s names in the relevant RTC extracts.

The High Court examined the original Tribunal records.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s rejection of the occupancy-rights claim warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227, in light of the evidence concerning tenancy and cultivation as of 1 March 1974.

2. Whether the petitioners’ allegation that their counsel had filed a false affidavit justified setting aside the Tribunal’s order.

The Court considered the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and applied the tenancy and occupancy-rights framework under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, including the requirement that the claimant establish the relevant tenancy and cultivation.

It relied on Krishna Bhat v. I Land Tribunal, Bantwal, ILR 1986 Kar. 1574, as authority relevant to establishing cultivation for an occupancy-rights claim.

The original records showed that the petitioners’ predecessor’s name did not appear in the RTC extracts from 1970–71 to 1974–75; the Court also noted the absence of the deceased petitioner’s name in the relevant entries.

The Tribunal’s finding further recorded that the deceased petitioner had filed an affidavit stating that he was not cultivating the lands.

The petitioners produced no independent witness to establish cultivation as of 1 March 1974.

As to the allegation against counsel, the Court noted that no appropriate action had been taken and that counsel had not been made a party to the writ petition; it found that allegation insufficient to warrant interference.

The writ petition was dismissed.