IN ThE BJGH COUR,’Y OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated the 11th day of Septembri, 1998 THE IION’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.R. BANNURMATH L. R. K. P. No. 4304 OF 1990 1 Bolayane Putta Poojari, Sb Annaiah Poojari, major, R/o Kalkoppa village, Araga Post, Thirthahalli Taluk, Smt Akkani, W/o late Koraga Poojari, major, R/o Hosur-4lobli Village, Salur raga Post, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shimoga District. PETITIONERS (By Sii. K T. Muhaii, dvoc) —: VERSUS : State of Karnataka. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Depar tment, Vidh So’Jha, Bangalore-56O OO1 2. 11.5. Nagappa, S/o Sandya Poojari, ma j or, R/o Hosur Bobli Village, Salui-Araga. Post, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shimoa 01st jet RESPONDENTS I S —: 2 :— (By Sri.S.N.Aswathanarayana, High Court Government Pleader, for Respondent—i and Sri. P. Panduranga Naik, Advocate, for Respondent 2) L.R.R.P.(CRP) filed under Section 121—A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act against the order dated 26-4-1990 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Shimoga District, Shimoga, in L.R.*.(W) 884/86 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 14—10—1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Thirthahalli Taluk, Thirthahalli, in LRT. (7) KSB. BBL. 7/74—75. This revision petition coming up for hearing this day, the Court made the following: o a Being aggrieved by the ordtr dated 26-4-1990 passed by the Land R f ra Appellat Authority, Shimoga, modifying the ords dafld 14—10—1981 passcd ty the Land Tr’buial, Thrthahalli, the un.u cessful landlo ds h v con up it thi revisioi petition. The brief facts of tht case at • Thc land in qa tion is Survey No.12 measuring I acre 25 guntas t Bobli village. After coming into force the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ‘s amended by Act No.1/1974 Sand3a Poojari, father of Respondent-! Sandya Poojari claiming to be the tenant of the entire extent filed his application In From No.? for grant of occupancy rights. As the matter was : 3 :— contested, the Tribunal permitted both sides to lead evidence and on persual of ths xc ord and the evidence by its order dated 14 10-1981 held that, as the landlord hay not di puted the claim of the applicant in respect of 32 5 guntas out of 1 acre 25 &untas, he i ntitled for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said portion alone. Aggrieved by the same, Re pondent-2 approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2248 of 1988 inter alia contending • that the applicant has p oved his tenancy in respect of the land in question and the Tribunal was • i error in confining the claim only to the extent of 32.5 guntas instead of the entire extent of 1 acre 25 g ntas. During the pendency of the proceeding before this Court, as the provisions of the LazA Re t rm 4ct tas amen’ 4 d and the App’llate Authority was onstituted, the writ petition was transferrtd t th Mpellat 4 tloCtj as an appeal. Before the Acllate Authort), on such trasf r, agair pp rt ity a i cx to both ides to tab terti te h’ clams in respe t of tI reje tion a d fter gi ing uch opportuiitj and considering the material the Appellat Authority p held that the Tribunal ab i t justfcd ix 4’ rejectiig the claim of Respondcnt—2 so far as the remaining area is concerned. It is t be mcntioned _. A ._ S •W I here itself that the grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in repeat of 32.5 guit wa neitter disputed nor halleng d by the petitioner herein before the Appellate Authoritj and a ruch it has attained finality. Now, in viea of the impugned order passed b the Appellate Authority granting the entire extent of land to Respondent-! the petitioners/landlords have up in this revision petition. In this revision petition it is contended that the Appellate Authority has committed an error of law and the evidence on record in granting the land in question to Respondent-!, when there was no documentary evidene produced b) the t ant to prove his tenancy; that the presumption arising under Se ti n 133 of the Land lever re Act ega ling the entra has not bten proper l considered b the Appellate &uthority or the Tribanal; that, as the names of the petitioners are shown both in (Cabjedar and Cultivator colains, the pcesuaption ailses in their fa ur and against the t r t and that the infe nec drar ard tie f d’rg er by the 7 Appellate A thority are wholl) isarranted d ar based o assumnptions; that the Apprilate Authority ought to have seen that the land in question, -: 5 though originally formed a compact block of the entire extent of I acre 25 gunta, later in a partition between Petitioners I and 2 both have been given 1/2 share each in the land and both were the owners of 32.5 guntas each in the land in dispute and as suet merel) because the petiti ners have admitted or consented for giving 32 r urtas o Respondent2, that does not mean that they have consented for the remaining area also. On these and other grounds, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the orde of th Appellate & thorit as 11 as of the Tribunal. On the other hand, Sri. Panduranga Naik, learned ounsel for ontestirg Rrspondent No.2 vehemently argued in support of the findings of the Appellate Authority and contended that the Appellate Authority has rightl consi&red all the rec rd ard material evid cc plaod before it t arrive at the orclus that Re pondent was entitled for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the entire extent of land and not half of it as 1 held by the Tibunal, C ._ . w Perused the records. At the outset, It is to be noted that the scope and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 171-A of the Land Reforms Act fox exercising tht reviional jun diction is ry limited one. This Court can interfere wth the findings of the a thortits only where there is error of juriad Con r lack of ju isdic.tioi or where there is t tal misreading or misappreciation of material evidence on record. Herd) been e there is possibility of coming to anothtr conclusion on appreciation of the facts, this Court cannot set at naught the finding of facts arrived at b) the authorities, as if this Court is a couit of first appeal. Keeping it view the scope and jurisdiction on oisidering the material placed before the Appellat... tithrrity s well a... before the Tribunal, it i seen th t th uL the or giral applicant Saidya Poojary wa hon as tenant of uthedar for the period from 1950 51 onwards, in jear 1971-72 when he noticed that his name has been deleted and the names of the j.etitioners have been entered, he maediately approached the revenue authorities in RTC proceedings and as the RTC Proceedings were pending the Lard Reforms Act time 4/’ into force, the matter wae agan ent back to the Tribunal. Thu. at undisputed point of time 1971 72 a.S ft spondent—2 has raised objectior for deleting his name and entering the names of the getitioners herein in the revenue records in nspect of the land in question. A. su b no sub taitial value as be drawn as the revenue records nrc doubtful in naturc. Since the petitioner have not proved as to how suddenly their names wcre entered deleting the name of the original tinant and under that proceedings. The contention of the petitioners that, though the lard in dispute originally formed a .ompact LloJc between the fetitioLrs, tha same was devided into 2 blocks of 32.5 guntas each is also incorrect as tin. revenue r°cord died won by the petitioners and produced before the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority by theaselve go t show that the entire land has remained as a compact block measuring 1 ac e 25 guntas and not divided or sub-divided into 2 different portions. The admission of the petitioners that the terant was cultivating the land in questior, though only half area and the subsequent conduct in nct challenging the me before an authority would go to show that the tenanc) of the original applicant is not lisputed. Th dy disputc ‘ r garding how much /1 area he was cultivating. The Appellate Authority has com to tic con’lusion that the tenant wa. —. 0 ._. . U cultivating the entire extent and not halt area as claimed by the petitioners herein and thi finding arrived at was only on the basis at appreciation of evidence of independent witn sses before, the Tribunal as well as before the 4ppellate 4uthority. As the findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority are basically findings of facts based Ott appreciation of evidence, this Court decline to interfere with such finding f f ct. nd a suck this revision petition is liable to be disaiss’d being devoid of merits. In the result, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/ JUDGE Tav.