(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the revision filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 121(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). In the revision petition challenge was to the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga (in short the 'Appellate Tribunal'). By the impugned order before the High Court the Appellate Tribunal had set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Shimoga Taluk (in short the 'Tribunal').
(2.) Respondent No. 1's stand before the High Court was that Inamdar Subbaraya, Respondent No. 1 was a tenant in respect of land measuring 2 acres 26 guntas in Survey No. 41/2A. It was held that the Tribunal had rightly granted occupancy right in his favour. Stand of the present appellant before the High Court was that occupancy has been granted based on the entries in the R.T.C. extract and presumption arises regarding the possession and cultivation. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal had rightly interfered with the order of the Tribunal. The High Court formulated two issues for consideration:
(3.) It appears that the High Court did not accept the presumptive value of the entries made in the R.T.C. extract but relied upon certain spot inspection made by the Tribunal.