VALLIKUNNI Vs. B KALYANI GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is a tenant who has suffered an adverse order in No. (LRAA) RA. 308/1986 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Hassan District constituted under Karnataka Land Reforms Act,

(2.) He presented an application in form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of S.No. 145 and 190 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas and 8 guntas and 2 acres 36 guntas respectively situate in the village Matasagara in Sakleshpur Taluk of Hassan District. By a majority of 3 to 2, occupancy rights came to be granted in his favour by an order of the tribunal dated 19-8-1986. Aggrieved by the same the opposite parties namely one Kalyana Gowda said to have been the purchaser of the lands from the previous owners Smt. Gulabi and Smt. Ratnamma presented the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appellate authority having regard to the evidence and record, came to the conclusion that the majority view was erroneous and the evidence did not warrant the conclusion that the tenant had established his right as a lawful cultivator as on 1.3.1974, the relevant date for claiming occupancy right. They have come to the conclusion that the pahani for the years 1974-75 is of no assistance to the tenant because they could not prove his possession as on 1.3.1974. On the other hand the pahani extract produced of the years 1969-70, 1973-74 show in the cultivators' column as ' ' meaning cultivated by the owners themselves. Therefore the presumption was in favour of the cultivators being the owners of the land. Obviously the tenant was not the owner of the land, therefore the purchaser from the owners who is the appellant before the Appellate Authority established that there was no tenancy on the land as on 1.3.1974.

(3.) The oral evidence adduced by the petitioner has been discarded by the appellate authority on the ground that there is contradiction between the two versions put forward. One witness Ananda had said that he did not know to whom the rent was paid; he also did not know why for six years the tenant was not cultivating the land. The other witness one Menausis falsely deposed that the land was being cultivated by the tenant-revision petitioner gave evidence which was contrary to the evidence given by the first-witness Ananda. Therefore the Appellate Authority discarded both their parole evidence as not reliable.