Occupancy rights require proof of tenancy and personal cultivation on the appointed date.

The appellant’s father owned land in Sy. No. 46, B.M. Kaval village. Respondent No. 3 sought occupancy rights by filing Form No. 7. In 1981, the Land Tribunal granted him rights over 2 acres, following an inspection that recorded cultivation over that extent.

On remand, the Tribunal in 2003 granted occupancy rights over 16 acres 30 guntas. The appellant’s writ petition challenging that order was dismissed in 2010; a later review petition was dismissed in 2016. The appellant challenged both orders in this appeal.

He disputed the tenant’s RTC entries and cultivation over the full extent, and asserted that the later survey report was not supplied to him and its author was not made available for cross-examination.

1. Whether the Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition and review petition

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting occupancy rights over 16 acres 30 guntas, having regard to the extent claimed in Form No. 7 and the evidence of tenancy and cultivation

A claimant seeking occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 must establish tenancy, possession and personal cultivation on the appointed date, 1 March 1974; the burden rests on the Form No. 7 applicant, and revenue records are relevant but are not conclusive proof of tenancy or cultivation.

A judicial or quasi-judicial order must give reasons addressing material evidence and objections.

Natural justice requires an effective opportunity to meet adverse material; cross-examination may be required where the circumstances warrant it.

Review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to recognised grounds, including error apparent and other sufficient reason, and cannot become an appeal on merits.

Under Article 226, interference is warranted where a statutory authority ignores material evidence or reaches a finding that cannot be sustained on a proper consideration of the record.

The Single Judge’s 2010 order merely upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion without addressing the appellant’s material objections concerning the extent of cultivation, revenue entries, earlier inspection and later survey. The review petition was then rejected without examining those grounds, despite the earlier appeal having been withdrawn with liberty to seek review.

On the Tribunal’s decision, the earlier 1981 inspection recorded cultivation over 2 acres, while the later survey supported a grant over 16 acres 30 guntas. The Tribunal did not explain how the later survey established cultivation as of 1 March 1974, reconcile the differing findings, or address the disputed RTC entries and evidence concerning the tenant’s residence and migration.

The later survey report was also not supplied to the appellant, and he was not afforded an effective opportunity to test it through the surveyor. Taken together, these omissions undermined the finding that the tenant had proved personal cultivation over the full extent on the appointed date.

The High Court set aside the Single Judge’s orders dated 3 August 2010 and 25 January 2016, and set aside the Tribunal’s 9 May 2003 grant of occupancy rights over 16 acres 30 guntas.

It did not interfere with the 1981 grant of occupancy rights over 2 acres, which the Court stated had attained finality. No remand was ordered.