In Brief
A farmer claimed occupancy rights as an agricultural tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in 1974, but the Land Tribunal rejected his claim after detailed consideration of evidence, finding his name appeared only sporadically in revenue records and he produced no corroborating documentary evidence of tenancy. The High Court upheld this rejection. Years later, when the property owner began developing the land under a Joint Development Agreement, the farmer filed a fresh petition in the Supreme Court and obtained an interim status quo order. The Supreme Court vacated this order, holding that the 546-day delay in filing the petition, the property's transformation from agricultural to developed use, and the balance of convenience all weighed against continuing the status quo, though compensation would be available if his tenancy rights were ultimately upheld."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.