4 I IN TH HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAFCALCRE Dated : This the 30t1 day of Nay, 1998 BE F JRE THE MR. J’SttlC CR BANNLEMATH No 114 OF 1989 BETWEEN: Bmt, Deveerarnrra, w/o Nanjunda Chari, major, No.14, Pemappa Block, Muni reddypaiya, Bangalore—6 since dnceasad L,q, N.Rudrechar, s/o late Nanjundacheri, No.2, R,Ji’,Biock, JC,Nec 0 r, Bangalore.6 ,, LTfll 1. (By Sri M.S. Gonal, Adv.) AND: 1 H liii iga1a. I, s/c Ttimraiah, maj or, 9erur village, unig Paiuk, 2, M, Nareyenaswamv, Le turr s nce dece-cd by n’wfe atnira major, “Kuniara Krupa”, Someswara Extension, Turkux 3, Land Tribunal, Kunigal Tluk, y t’Ser 4. State of Karnlt&ee, by the SetetrytoGct H-en i. ar ‘flida, lie ; or I , StJDN1 Lv Sri C,. La1avry & V.udr&, A” fcr it, • Zen Y rei, C r — S S e 2 ,, This LRRI is fuel i/s,121—A of the Karnstaka Lana Reforms Act against the order dated 31-10-88 passed in APPEAL No.249/86 on the file o the 01st, Appellate Authority, Tuirkur 01st, allowing the appeal and setting eside th or&’r passed by the Land Tribunal, Kunigal in KAS.49/76—77. This LRRP coining on for Hearing this day, the Court made the following ORDER Thi revision ‘-‘et’tion is filed by tn€ neuccess_ ful landlady against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Tumkur, in Appeal No.249/86 dated 31—10-1988, reversing the order dated 14—11—80 nassed by th Land Tribunal Turiku and cDnfirming h occupa ci ights to ae 1st repondent -Thiru malaiah, The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the land Sy,No 37/2 n L Ps m desi H nt a no tr I bli Ktn ga Taltk Accrding to the peticione, n the year 1963 the land was mortgaged by a registered wortgago deed n favour of sne Narayena—swaim 1 ft r ccmnq into tore theKrnitP Lob R) efAt te The ‘ a/MgLt aebyha rierdate 6—81 declere’ 3 th 0 t the debt is redeemen r that t e p p . •. pa itt er a’ nta. led for posse o • It e e intended that aft coming to f ce a. the’ariakat 0 ndkefon’Ae, 61 as a’ dii) tiking this ath ntsqe of the po’’e°ncn a tqaqee,th sadNar i’flash, etip the 1 t espind itt Thin aj aa t flint a I aide him to £ lean ap liection in P0 a on 5—6 6 &k it e’11 an that a line filaco he ep lie ti.on n form No.7 had eprd Xci illy a hetear 987, el 0 ncz btnl rated eocupac ight t sw d diii ing nir a P.’ 7/.? ouroj tho 8 1 a o t h e e r Ii a rehe c tht b t 1 ii 4 C a a .4, 4 to the evidence recrded by t after affording a reasmable oprortunIty of adi$ucing evidence and of being heard to all the a ties interested in the land.” After thc ramand, the Land Tribunal tok up the matter for fresh enquiry and after record-S ing the evidence of the witnesses putforth by oth th sides by its order dated 1411—8O rejected the laim of the 1st reep ndent—tenant, Aggrieved by the same, the tenant approached this Court in W,P,No.1261/81 and the learned Single udgc by us rder datad 1 —9—8 d -miss€d the nt t ion Howevc thet taptel 0. 259/82 filed by the tenant? in view of the amendment ict and establishment of the Karnataka Land P rms Ap late thority he Di i ion no nectc °wn al tr td as appeal before the Ap 1 a1late AuJionity and transferred the case to tne App hate Authority for fr t cons anIon valid or o ise r & an un S S S S The Appellate Authority by the impugned order pursuaded to grant the occupancy to the 1st respon dent and hence this revision petiton The learned Counsel for the petitioner,lsndlady contended that the bppellate AuthorIty has granted the occvpan rights to the 1st respondent without following the directions issued this Court in the earliest writ petition in as much as though: it was p.rohibited to take into considerati.on the statements prior to the remand, it has relied upon the same to hold that the 1st respondent is tenant of the land in question 5 Ftrther it i.s contended that in the absence of any material evidence produced by the 1st respondent and in view of the admitted revenue records which show the name of the p-etitioner and thereafter that of Narayanaswari which have presuntive value under Section 133 of the Karnataka / / Land Revenue Act has not been properly consadered and hence prays• for rejecting the claim of the 1st respon ) I t e , , , petitioner but in the cross exanntaon he bus ednitted that it wa Narayan sarrq who rns first leased the land to him. This is totally cort a dictory statenent, Even i form N .7 t’e claim of the 1st respondent is egainst the Etitioner only stating that the petiti ncr S* f aa leased the land since 1960, The vidence ± Ninoamm alleged to be neighbouing lard wner Iso do no supp rt any case of the a eaonden • perusal ± U v dance of ttia witness, t L t as thth°hsbeer e pbytfetnnt rasalaged ytfelcar ad cranel o tap ttonerby hc o t aaer Naray r a any Nodoub th evidenc ± n m, Rethnaur , w ± ofN-ayaaswmy ohova U t Ue 1 t e-pondart w a cult’v t n th lard on 1 a’e but sha ta also Uon gno ance as to butte th 1st r°s ordent was cultivatirq the land even before the lard was in rtgaged in favour / / of hOr husbar I asolutaly no evidence va° lead by the lot respordert to how bust he wac oulttvot nc On -n I 8 the land in questionleitter under the petitioner Deyeeramma or Narayanaswarcy at any point of time, Though whilE.. exercising revisianel jurisdiction this Court cannot act as a court of first appeal in view of the clear violation Of the directions by the Appellate Authority as there is total misreadinci of the: evidence on record, it becom:s necessary for this Court to exercise the revisional Jurisdiction to set a.side the erro.r committed by the Appellate. Authority. As it is noticed that the 1st respondent has failed totally to prove his tenancy at any point of tine much less on 1-3—1374, the land Tribunal was justified in: rejecting the claim and it was illegal and erroneous on the part of tie Appellate Authority to reverse t..he said: finding and grant occupancy rights without eny proper basis In tha result, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 3litt—i9SE passed bi, the Aooelitte V 1/ Authoroty, Tunrur, in Apoeal No,24c/86 is set aside 4 L) ‘C and the order of the Land Tribunal dated i41iI 980 is restored, rejectir...g the claim of the 1st respondent. There shell be n others as o costs, JUDGE NStT/