Section 77-A inquiry determines possession and cultivation, not the existence of tenancy.

The appellant claimed tenancy rights over 2 acres 15 guntas in Survey No. 118, Byragondanahalli Village, Hassan District. He asserted that his father had been cultivating the land as a tenant before 1 March 1974 and that, after his father’s death, he continued in possession and cultivation.

The RTCs from 1965–66 onwards recorded the father’s name in Column 12(2), with the appellant’s name appearing from 1988–89 onwards.

The appellant’s father filed an application under Form 7-A, invoking Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

After considering the RTCs, surveyor’s information, the Revenue Inspector’s report, local statements and a spot inspection, the Assistant Commissioner held that the appellant’s father had been in possession and cultivation before 1 March 1974 and that the appellant continued such possession.

The Assistant Commissioner accordingly granted tenancy rights by order dated 21 December 2002.

The landlord challenged that order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the appellant had failed to establish tenancy and set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order on 27 February 2008. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and affirmed the Tribunal’s decision on 3 March 2017. The present intra-court appeal challenged that judgment.

The Court applied Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which permits determination of entitlement where the applicant establishes the requisite possession and cultivation of the land, read with Rule 26-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, prescribing the inquiry procedure.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in Lokayya Poojary v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2012 KAR 4345, the Court held that an inquiry under Section 77-A is not intended to adjudicate the abstract existence of tenancy; it primarily concerns whether the applicant was in possession and cultivation before 1 March 1974 and continued in possession and cultivation on 1 November 1998.

The Court also considered Sections 44(1) and 45(1) of the Act concerning vesting of tenanted land in the State and conferment of occupancy rights.

Official revenue records, mutation entries, revenue reports and corroborative evidence may establish possession and cultivation, particularly where the claim is made through a deceased parent.

The Court held that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge had applied an incorrect approach by focusing on whether the appellant himself, rather than his father, was shown as the cultivator on 1 March 1974.

The RTCs recorded the name of “Khasim Sab” in Column 12(2) from years preceding 1 March 1974, including the relevant period of 1970–71 to 1973–74. The appellant’s name appeared in later entries after his father’s death, which was consistent with the claim being asserted through the father.

The Assistant Commissioner’s findings were additionally supported by the surveyor’s information, the Revenue Inspector’s report and the spot inspection recording local statements, all of which indicated continuous possession and cultivation by the appellant’s family.

The landlord’s contention that a different person had cultivated the land as a coolie did not rebut this material, and the Tribunal did not identify any evidence discrediting the revenue reports or inspection findings.

The Court further rejected the objection regarding absence of notice for the spot inspection because the landlord had received an opportunity of hearing and had filed written submissions; the applicable procedure contemplated individual and public notice.

Accordingly, the appellant satisfied the twin requirements under Section 77-A.

The High Court set aside the learned Single Judge’s order dated 3 March 2017 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 27 February 2008.

The Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 21 December 2002 in LRF/94/99–2000, granting the appellant tenancy rights in respect of the subject land, was restored.