ORDER The rejection of the petitioner's application in Form 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 of 2004 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short 'KA'J.V), stood dismissed by order dated 15-3-2006, Annexure-A. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner having failed to file an application in Form 7, for being registered as an occupant of land in question, filed Form 7-A, 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 Hosabayya Nagappa Naik and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others1. 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 tat 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 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 77-A of the Act". 4. 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 77-A of the Act". 4. A later decision of another co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in S.C. Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Others2, of which reference is made by the KAT in the order impugned, in the circumstances is apposite: "The proceeding under Section 77-A cannot be equated to a proceeding initiated by the Land Tribunal in pursuance of an application in Form 7 made under Section 45 of the Act. It needs to be noticed at the threshold that if an applicant in Form 7 establishes that he was in actual possession and personal cultivation of the subject lands as on the appointed date, that is, 1-3-1974, the Land Tribunal is duty-bound to grant occupancy rights of such lands. But, that is not the situation under Section 77 -A of the Act. Section 77 -A of the Act is only on enabling provision to grant a land which is already vested in the State Government to an applicant. No applicant in Form 7-A can claim a land as a matter of right or as a matter of course. For varieties of reasons, the Assistant Commissioner may not grant land to an applicant. Secondly, a person who has missed the bus due to his indolence cannot be treated on par with a person who is vigilant in working out his legal remedies by making application in Form 7 within the stipulated time. Law helps the vigilant, and not the indolent. That seems to be the legislative policy behind Section 77 -A of the Act. If the Legislature wanted to help even those tenants who did not make application in Form 7 within the stipulated time to secure grant of occupancy rights, of course, the law maker would have extended the time to make Form 7 applications. Therefore, there are no good and weighty reasons to differ from the opinion of the Co-ordinate Bench". 5. If the Legislature wanted to help even those tenants who did not make application in Form 7 within the stipulated time to secure grant of occupancy rights, of course, the law maker would have extended the time to make Form 7 applications. Therefore, there are no good and weighty reasons to differ from the opinion of the Co-ordinate Bench". 5. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entries in the RTC pahanis disclosing the name of the petitioner as the cultivator of the land in question on the appointed date, being a record of an accomplished fact, was evidence of vesting of the land in the State under Section 44 of the Act, in my considered opinion, cannot be countenanced. I say so because, Sections 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 provides for raising a presumption over the correctness of the entries made in the Revenue Records which could be rebutted by establishing contra facts. It is needless to state that the entries in the Record of Rights are made for the purpose of the Land Revenue Act which raises a presumption that is rebuttable. When a Revenue Officer makes an order under Chapter XI of the Land Revenue Act, 1964, that the name of a particular person should or should not be entered in the Record of Rights as a tenant in possession of the land, it cannot be regarded as having decided whether the person is or not a tenant. If that is so, then there is no accomplished fact of land being tenanted and having vested in the State under Section 44 of the Act. The mere entry in the Revenue Records cannot, ipso facto establish that the land was tenanted and cultivated by the tenant in order to vest in the State under Section 44 of the Act. 6. It is in these circumstances 'and having regard to the observations made by the two co-ordinate Division Benches of this Court, the Officer authorised and the KAT were fully justified in rejecting the claim of the applicant. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, rejected.