HUCHEGOWDA Vs. CHANNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by the tenant under Section 121 A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to the Act) directed against the order of the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act for Mandya District, dated 7-5-1987 allowing the appeal of respondent-Channam- ma.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition may be stated briefly and they are as follows. The revision petition applied in form No.7 seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of certain lands in S. Nos. 72/1 in an extent of 16 guntas, 74/9 in an extent of 12 guntas, 72/3 in an extent of 16 guntas, 74/2 in an extent of 18 guntas, 74/4 in an extent of 57 guntas, 142/4 in an extent of 12 guntas, 131/20 in an extent of 13 guntas and 142/5 in an extent of 12 guntas. That application came to be allowed despite opposition, solely on the ground that his tenancy was proved by a registered lease deed executed in favour of the applicant-revision petitioner as far back as in the year 1956 and also by the fact that his name appeared in the RTC extracts for the years 1972-73 1973-74 and 1974-75.

(3.) The Appellate Authority in the appeal examined the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the Land Tribunal Nagamangala erred in relying upon the said document. It has given the reasons for it, The first reason is the so-called lease deed was not a lease deed at allmuch less a registered one. Therefore, reliance could not have been placed on that document for establishing the tenancy. The second reason is that the presumptive value of the entries in the RTC extracts for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 could not be given their due weight because at no earlier point of time the tenant's name had been entered in the record of rights. It was only for those two years his name was found entered. That gave room to suspect as to how that name came to be written without any provocation or cause.