LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH, S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMKUR, SRI. T.K. PRAKASH, S/O KAMPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of 1 acre 6 guntas of land in Sy. No. 31/I of Kesthur village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk. The petitioner claims that his family has been cultivating the land as a tenant since last 70 years. Respondent No. 3 is the landlord. Suffice it to say that the father of the petitioner did not make an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. But however, the petitioner made an application in Form No. 7A for grant of the land. The competent authority has granted the application. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal. The said appeal has been accepted and the order passed by the competent authority has been set -aside. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was forceably dispossessed by respondents 3 and 4 after he made an application in Form No. 7A.

(3.) INDEED Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act contemplates that an application is required to be made for grant of land within a specified time. The said provision also envisages that there must be a vesting and as on the date of making an application, the applicant must be in possession. These are all conditions precedent before an application under Form No. 7A is entertained. In the ease on hand except for the Revenue records, the petitioner has not been able to show that he was in possession as on the date he made an application. Incidentally, it is also to be noticed that respondent No. 3, who is a landlord has sold the land in question in favour of respondent No. 4 pursuant to a registered sale deed. Indeed it is to be noticed that the Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding that the petitioner has not been able to show that he was in possession as on the date when he made an application. That being a question of fact, I am of the view that the question of interference does not arise. It is also to be noticed that the application in Form Ne.7A is filed only alter the sale has taken place in favour of respondent No. 4. This itself belies the assertion of the petitioner that he is in continuous possession. Having said so, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not call for Interference. Petition stands rejected.