PARAMESHWARA POOJARY Vs. B THIMMAPPA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (the 'Act' for short). He is aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority constituted for Dakshina Kannada, dated 6th October 1987, passed in No. LRA.TT.3742/86. The revision petitioner made an application in Form No. VII and in proceedings under Section 48-A of the Act, the occupancy rights were granted to him in respect of S.Nos. 19/8,19/7, 20/3, 20/4 and 28/7 of Bajpe village. Aggrieved by that order, his opponent preferred writ petition in this Court which came to be transferred to the Appellate Authority, consequent upon the amendment made to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in 1986.

(2.) Before the Appellate Authority, additional evidence was recorded. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner-tenant had failed to establish that he was cultivating the lands in question on the relevant date as tenant, i.e., on 1.3.1974. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Authority has reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal and rejected the application of the revision petitioner-tenant.

(3.) Sri Patil, Learned Counsel appearing for U.L. Narayana Rao, has taken the Court through the order of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Land Tribunal in detail. He has strenuously contended that any presumption that arose in favour of the landlord on account of the entries in the record of rights extract stood rebutted by the documentary evidence produced by the tenant. The documentary evidence produced by the tenant were the loan applica tions made to the Co-operative Society for sanction of loan for the cultivation of paddy as well as. the receipts issued by the Agricultural Co-operative Bank for surrender of levy paddy. The Appellate Authority did not attach much importance to the documentary evidence produced by the tenant for two reasons. The first reason was that his application made to the society did not disclose in respect of which land, the loan had been asked for, though specific column was provided for the applicant to disclose such detail. Levy receipts also did not disclose in respect of which land the levy had been collected or surrendered.