- (1.) THE rejection of the petitioner's application in Form No. 7-A under Section 77-A of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for short 'act', by order dated 14-12-2004 of the Officer authorised, when called in question in Appeal No. 524-05/2004 before the Karnataka Appellate tribunal (for short 'kat), stood dismissed by order dated 15-03-2006 Annexure-"a". Hence, this Writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having failed to file an application in Form No. 7, for being registered as an occupant of land in question, filed Form no. 7a, for grant of the said land in support of which he produced the RTC Pahani of the said land disclosed his name as the cultivator on the appointed date, an "accomplished fact", of a lawful tenancy. According to the learned Counsel both the Officer authorised and the KAT without considering the "accomplished fact'", recorded a perverse finding that the land did not vest in the State under Section 44 of the Act.
(3.) AN examination of the orders impugned disclose that the KAT extracted in extenso the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Hasabayya Nagappa Naik and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Revenue Department and Ors. ILR2002 KAR 1342 , 2002 (3 )Karlj53. Their lordships held that in an application under Section 77-A. the Officer authorised, in exercise of jurisdiction to grant land, must be satisfied of the three conditions mentioned therein and that conditions (1) and (2)"should have been satisfied and foregone in respect of the land". It is further observed that the land should have vested in the State Government on the appointed date, which should have already taken place and that the evidence required to be placed by an applicant in Form No. 7-A is only to show that such an event has taken place already and that vesting of the land in favour of the State Government must find a place in some official record. The Division Bench in addition observed thus: "what is not in existence and is not borne out on the record in respect of an accomplished fact and of a past event cannot be made good by means of oral evidence at the time of an enquiry for the purposes of Section 77a of the Act. ";