RAVIKUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's father is said to have filed an application in Form No.7-A under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for short "KLR Act" for grant of land claiming to be a tenant of the said lands and had not made an application in Form No.7 under Section 48-A of the said Act for conferment of occupancy rights. That application when considered by the Assistant Commissioner was rejected by order dated 23.1.2003, following which petitioner filed an appeal No.950/2003 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) invoking Section 118(2) of the said Act. KAT by order dated 12.11.2007 having noticed that the two conditions in Section 77-A were not complied with by the petitioner i.e. firstly, the show of the petitioner that there was an undisputed fact on record without any enquiry as a tenant lawfully in possession and occupation of the land as on the appointed date and secondly that the land should have been vested in the State Government, as on the appointed date, as if it was a tenanted land, an event which has already taken place, concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of land under Section 77-A of the said Act and accordingly dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Hence this petition.

(2.) The KAT in the order impugned extracted the observations of the Division Bench in Hosabayya Nagappa Naik and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 2002 ILR(Kar) 1342. and thereaf-terwards at paragraph 11 applied the same to the facts of the case. KAT observed that it was for the appellant/petitioner to prove that revenue records show that his father was a tenant in possession and cultivation of the land as an undisputed tenant as on the appointed date i.e. 1.3.1974 and until filing of Form No.7A. According to the KAT, petitioner though produced copies of the RTC for the years 1974-75 to 1978-79, nevertheless against column No.12(3), the word "guttige" i.e., lease is recorded and since there is nothing to establish that the petitioner's father was an undisputed tenant (genidara), the two conditions relevant for consideration under Section 77-A of the Act were not fulfilled. In other words there was nothing on record to establish an undisputed fact that petitioner's father was a tenant, lawfully in possession and cultivation of the land as on appointed date, so also there was nothing on record to establish that the land had vested in the State of Karnataka as on the appointed date as tenanted land.

(3.) The Assistant Commissioner and the KAT having come to conclusions based upon facts, the petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, subscribed by certain limitations, it is not permissible to have a re-look at the evidence or material on record so as to disturb the factual findings and come to a different conclusion.