LAXMAN PUNAPPA CBAUGALA Vs. RAMESH MALAKAPPA BALLOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the applicant before the Land Tribunal, Belgaum. He presented an application - form No.7 u/s. 48A seeking registration of occupancy rights in Sy.No.334/1 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas in Uchagaon village of Belgaum Taluk, Belgaum. That application came to be allowed by the Land Tribunal by its order dated 14-11-1979 on the sole ground that from the year 1954 to 1973, his name was shown in the Record of Rights as cultivator. That order came to be challenged before this Court by the landlord one Ramesh Malakappa Belloli" in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. That writ petition came to the allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal. On remand, the matter was disposed of afresh, after notice to the parties and after recording evidence and receiving documents on behalf of the parties. The tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no clear evidence of the land having been cultivated by the applicant or his father on the relevant date namely 1-3-1974 or immediately prior there to. They placed credence on the fact that in the Record of Rights from 1965-66, the name of the landlord also was shown as cultivator. Thereafter, on scrutiny of the R.T.C. extracts they found that from 1969 to 1973, the land was shown as lying fallow. Similarly, the landlord's statement before the Land Tribunal was to the effect that the petitioner and his father were cultivating the land only as agricultural labourers and were never tenants and it was for that reason, the mistake made in the Record of Rights showing them as cultivators was corrected on the information given by the father of the applicant only. Having regard to these facts, they rejected the application on the ground that there was no evidence that the applicant was cultivating the land as on 1-3-1974 or immediately prior to that date.

(2.) Challenging that order, the tenant-applicant presented a writ petition to this Court which subsequently came to be transferred to the Appellate Authority for disposal after the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was amended in 1986. Appellate authority has confirmed the order of the Tribunal on the ground Le. that if at all, the applicant and his father were cultivating the land it was only as agricultural labourers and having regard to the entries in the Record of Rights from 1965 onwards, it was the landlord himself who was personally cultivating the land. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is preferred in this Court under Section 12A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

(3.) Mr. Goulay, appearing for the revision petitioner has taken nte through two orders. He pointed out what he contended to be serious errors committed by the Tribunal as well as the appellate authority in placing reliance on the changes made in the Record of Rights as late as in the year 1974 that too in the month of April, 1974 by which time, the land which was tenanted had become vested in the Government by operation of section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. He, therefore, contended that changing the entries in the Record of Rights was without the authority of law which was proposed to be on the 'wardy' given by the father of the applicant himself. But that change made in the Record of Rights was never challenged by the applicant-revision petitioner or his father is not in dispute. It is possible that the Land Tribunal or the appellate authority were impressed by the evidence given by the landlord. Then appreciating the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence is a matter which is within the exclusive discretion of the authority which recorded the evidence and the Court or the authority to which an appeal lies. Unless it is demonstrated, by appreciating evidence documentary or oral, there is misdirection or perversity this Court sitting as a revisional court will not reassess the evidence unless it is demonstrated that evidence placed before the Court has been over-looked br there is no proper application of mind to the evidence recorded or that there is serious injustice done or there is failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal. I have held in I.L.R. 1987 Karnataka Page 1427 in the case of Vilas alias Gundu Ananthacharya, v State of Karnataka that the scope under Section 121-A while it may be wider than the scope u/s. 115 C.P.C. can never be equated with the scope of an appeal. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion on the cumulative effect of the evidence on record, this court is helpless.