ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.716/2009 thereby allowing the appeal filed under Section 118(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, 'the Act') and setting aside the order dated 24.04.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru, in case No. LRF (7A) 77/99-2000. The Assistant Commissioner had allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 77A of the Act in Form No.7A seeking grant of an extent of 1 acre 37 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 13 as tenant in occupation of the same. 2. Facts involved in the case, stated in brief, are that father of the petitioner one Jayaramaiah v/as cultivating the land bearing Sy. No. 13 measuring 5 acres 31 guntas situated at Suggatta Village, Jala Bhobli, Bengaluru North Taluk as tenant under one Dibhugiriyappa. As per Sale Deed dated 11.12.1965, the said Dibhugiriyappa sold an extent of 3 acres 32 guntas of land in favour of Jayaramaiah. It is urged that Jayaramaiah continued as tenant in respect of remaining extent of 1 acre 37 guntas of laird. Jayaramaiah, father of the petitioner herein did not choose to file any application seeking grant of occupancy rights as per the provisions of the Act. However, after the death of Jayaramaiah and on 29.01.1999, an application in Form Wo.7A as per Section 77A of the Act was filed by the present petitioner, son of Jayaramaiah claiming grant of 1 acre 37 guntas of land asserting that it stood vested in the State Government as his father and subsequently himself was the tenant of the same. 3. On 24.04.2009, the Competent Authority has passed an order vide Annexure-B granting an extent of 1 acre 37 guntas of land in favour of petitioner holding that he was the tenant of the same. The Assistant Commissioner has found that tax paid receipts disclosed that tax was paid in respect of entire land by Jayaramaiah including the land in question. He has further concluded that owner of the land/respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein did not produce any documents to show that Jayaramaiah or his son/petitioner herein had been dispossessed from the land in question by adopting; due process of law. He has further concluded that owner of the land/respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein did not produce any documents to show that Jayaramaiah or his son/petitioner herein had been dispossessed from the land in question by adopting; due process of law. The competent authority, therefore, came to the conclusion that applicant before him was in possession of land in question since 1959 and continued to be in possession till 1998 which was the relevant year for the purpose of grant of land under Section 77A of the Act. 4. This order was challenged by respondent No.6, purchaser of the land from respondents 2 to 5 by filing an appeal under Section 118(2) of the Act. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has re-examined the entire matter and has come to the conclusion that there was no material to establish that 1 acre 37 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 13 was cultivated by the petitioner or his predecessor in title as on 01.03.1974 and continued to enjoy the same subsequently as on 01.11.1998. The Tribunal has found that revenue records regarding land in question did not disclose the name of the petitioner or his father as tenant cultivating the land and that the land had been indeed acquired by the Central Government, but during the year 1980-81, the acquisition proceedings were dropped in respect of the said land and the same was given back to the owners; it is thereafter respondents 2 to 5 herein sold the property in favour of respondent No.6 by executing a registered Sale Deed dated 26 02.2007. Thus, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the competent authority. The Tribunal has placed reliance on several judgments of this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that ample materials had been produced before the competent authority to disclose that the land stood vested in the State as it was a tenanted land as on 01.03.1974 and petitioner was in possession of the same as on 01.11.1998, the date on which Act No.23/1998 came into force and therefore, petitioner was entitled for grant of land under the provisions of Section 77A of the Act. He has invited the attention of the Court to the tact that petitioner had produced tax paid receipts in respect of entire land and that at an undisputed point of time entire land had been mortgaged for securing loan by the father of the petitioner. Thus, it is urged by him that the Tribunal was in error in reversing the order passed by the competent authority. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader supports the order passed by the Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Lokayya Poojary & Another v. State of Karnataka & Others - ILR 2012 KAR 4345. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and considered entire materials on record. In the light of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lokayya Poojary & Another v. State of Karnataka & Others - ILR 2012 Kar 4345, it is held that in a proceeding under Section 77A of the Act, an enquiry as contemplated under Section 48A of the Act cannot be undertaken. The provisions of Section 77A is made to enable the person, who is in occupation of land of which he was a tenant and continued to be in possession as tenant as on the appointed date, to apply for giant of such land, if he had failed to make such an application earlier within the stipulated period. In the said proceeding under Section 77A, question whether the said land was a tenanted land or not cannot be gone into. As held by the Full Bench in the judgment referred to supra, the language used in Section 77A made it clear that the enquiry to be held under the said provision was not an enquiry under Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 and the intention of the legislature is very clear in introducing Rule 26(C) which came into effect from 02.11.1998. The authority to grant, the land under Section 77A is also not the Tribunal as constituted, but it is the Deputy Commissioner or the Officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf. The Full Bench has further made it clear that the applicant who had applied under Section 77A of the Act was required to prove that the land was vested in the State by operation of law. The Full Bench has further made it clear that the applicant who had applied under Section 77A of the Act was required to prove that the land was vested in the State by operation of law. He has to produce undisputed documents in the nature of official record showing the vesting of land. In the absence of such official record evidencing vesting, authorities under Section 77A would not get any jurisdiction to hold an enquiry and grant land under Section 77A by ascertaining the disputed fact as to whether the land was a tenanted land and the applicant was a tenant. The official record, the Full Bench observes, could be in the form of land revenue receipts, record of rights, mutation orders, etc. 8. In the instant case, facts disclose that though the entire extent of land measuring 5 acres 31 guntas was in occupation of Jayaramaiah, father of petitioner and although he asserted that he was cultivating the land as a tenant, he purchased an extent of 3 acres 32 guntas by a registered Sale Deed dated 11.12.1965. Jayaramaiah did not claim occupancy rights by filing an application in. Form No.7 as per the Act. After his death and in the year 1999, the present petitioner files Form No.7A invoking Section 77A of the Act. Therefore, burden was on him to establish that the remaining extent of land comprised in Sy. No. 13 was a tenanted land and that he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same as tenant as on the date of coming into force the Act No.23/1998. As discussed by the Tribunal at length, none of the revenue record disclose actual cultivation and possession of petitioner of an extent of 1 acre 37 guntas of land either as on 01.03.1974 or as on 01.11.1998 when Act No.23/1998 came into force. In such circumstances, it was not open for the competent authority to embark upon an enquiry to independently find out by receiving evidence as to whether the land was a tenanted land and the applicant continued to be in possession of the property as on 01.11.1998. 9. As held by the Full Bench of this Court, such an enquiry is not permissible. 9. As held by the Full Bench of this Court, such an enquiry is not permissible. The enquiry to be conducted by the competent authority is confined to find out whether the land stood vested as on 01.03.1974 and whether there was any official record in this regard to disclose such vesting. In the instant case, though the petitioner claims to have paid land revenue in respect of entire land, that does not by itself disclose that he was in possession of entire extent of land, muchless the nature of his possession as tenant. If the land was a tenanted land as on the date of vesting, name of the petitioner or his father could have been entered as tenant in the cultivator's column of the revenue record. There is no other official record to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and the owner of land. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was right and justified in holding that there were no documents to establish vesting of land and the relationship of landlord and tenant. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal is in accordance with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court referred to supra. 10. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.