ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioner in the instant Land Reforms Revision Petition, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 30th November 1988 passed in ALRAA No. 4/1988 on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickballapur, confirming the order dated 6th January 1988 passed in proceedings No. LRM. 1551/74- 75, 106:80-81, 107:80-81, 108:80-81, 109:80-81, 110:80-81 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Chintamani and also the order dated 6th January 1988 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Chintamani, has presented the instant revision petition.
2. Petitioner herein, claiming to be tenant in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 16, measuring 02 acres 23 guntas, situate at Sonnsettihalli, Chintamani Taluk, had filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the said land which was attached to Sri. Anjaneya swamy temple, under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for brevity “Act”). The said application filed by petitioner had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, Chintamani on 11th October 1977 and on 22nd September 1981. The Land Tribunal, Chintamani, after conducting enquiry in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, proceeded to pass the order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Chintamani, petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition before this Court in Writ Petition No. 11790/1982. The said writ petition filed by petitioner was allowed by this Court by its order dated 27th March 1984 and the order passed by Land Tribunal Chintamani was set aside and the matter was remitted back to Land Tribunal, Chintamani for reconsideration and to conduct common enquiry in strict compliance of the requirement of Rule 17 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. After remand, the Land Tribunal, Chintamani took up the matter for reconsideration on 6th January 1988. The Land Tribunal, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on file and the claim made by petitioner, has rejected his claim for grant of occupancy on the ground that, petitioner has failed to establish that, he was a tenant as on 1st July 1970 or as on 1st March 1974 along the application filed by two other applicants, i.e. respondents 1 and 2 herein. Further, the Land Tribunal has specifically mentioned that, in the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore in No. A5-Ml(K)23/77-78 dated 30th June 1977, the land in question has been registered in the name of deity, i.e. Sri. Anjaneyaswamy Temple. Assailing the correctness of the said order passed by Land Tribunal, Chintamani dated 6th January 1988, the petitioner herein filed the appeal on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickballapur (hereinafter called the “Appellate Authority”) in proceedings No. A.L.R.A.A. 4/1988. The Appellate Authority, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after conducting enquiry, in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Appellate Authority Rules and after giving sufficient opportunity to parties, has given a specific finding at paragraphs 12 and 13 of its order holding that, petitioner has failed to establish that, he was cultivating the land as tenant as on 1st July 1970 or as on 1st March 1974 and dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner, confirming the order passed by Land Tribunal, Chintamani. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Chintamani and the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickballapur, as stated supra, petitioner herein has presented the instant revision petition.
3. The principal submission canvassed by Sri. G. Gangireddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside at the threshold itself in view of non compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 27th March 1984 in Writ Petition No. 11790/1982 filed by petitioner. Secondly, he vehemently submitted that, as per Section 4 of the Act, petitioner was lawfully cultivating the land and is therefore, entitled to be declared as tenant by registering occupancy rights in his favour. Thirdly, he has taken me through the order passed by Land Tribunal as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority and specifically pointed out that, there is a reference in the orders passed by both the authorities that, petitioner’s name is found in the RTC extract from 1967-68,1968-69 1969-70,1970-711971- 72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. He submitted that, if that reference is taken into consideration, petitioner is entitled for grant of occupancy rights in his favour. Further, it is the serious grievance of the Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that, these three valid grounds have not at all been taken into consideration by both the authorities and contrary to the material available on record and contrary to the directions issued by this Court, both the authorities have proceeded and passed the impugned orders, without conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned orders passed by both authorities are liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 3, inter alia, contended and substantiated the orders passed by both authorities, stating that, both the authorities, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on file, have given concurrent finding of fact, against the petitioner holding that, the petitioner has neither established that, he was cultivating the said land as tenant as on 1st July 1970 or as on 1st March 1974 nor has he produced the lease deed or gutta receipt before both the authorities for having cultivated the said land prior to 1970-71. She further submitted that, for the agricultural years 1970-71 and 1971-72, petitioner was cultivating the said land only on the basis of right of cultivation obtained by him in auction and therefore, that does not give him any right to claim tenancy of the said land from 1970-71. Therefore, both the authorities have passed well considered orders and interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional power under Section 121-A of the Act is not justifiable nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to entertain the instant revision petition.
5. After hearing learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for third respondent, after careful microscopic evaluation of the entire original records available on file, threadbare, and after considering the rival contentions urged by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the only question that arise for consideration in the instant case is as to:
WHETHER the impugned order passed by both the authorities are sustainable in law?
After careful perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, I do not find any error of law much less material irregularity committed by both the authorities in rejecting the claim of petitioner holding that, the petitioner has failed to establish that, he has cultivating the said land as tenant on the basis of lease nor has he established that, he was cultivating the said land as tenant as on 1st July 1970 or as on 1st March 1974. It is significant to note, after evaluation of the original records available on file that, the certified copy of the RTC extracts issued by the Tahsildar dated 26th May 1977 are very much available in the original records at ink pages 120 and 121. In the said RTCs, the relevant years for consideration for grant of occupancy rights is, the agricultural years 1965-66 to 1969-70 and 1970-71 to 1974-75. It is pertinent to note that, for the agricultural years 1965-66 and 1966-67, in column No. 9- Kabzedars column, the name of deity, Sri Anjaneyaswamy has been shown and in column 12(2)-cultivator’s column, it is shown blank and in column No. 12(3)- mode of cultivation column also, it is shown blank. For the agricultural years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the name of one Sri. Venkataramappa has been shown and in column No. 12 (2) and 12(3), it is shown blank. For the Agricultural year 1969-70, in column No. 12(2), the name of one Sri. Narayanappa has been shown and in column No. 12 (3), it is shown blank. For the agricultural years 1970-71 to 1974-75, the name of one Sri Appaiah – i.e. petitioner herein has been shown in column No. 12(2) and in column No. 12(3), it is shown blank. In column No. 9-Kabzedar’s column, in the same RTC, the name of deity, i.e. ‘Sri Anjaneyaswamy temple’ is shown. From a microscopic evaluation of the RTC for these relevant years, now it is crystal clear that, nowhere the name of petitioner has been mentioned nor the basis on which he has been cultivating the land in question. Further, no where in the said RTC, for the agricultural years 1965-66 to 1969-70, the name of petitioner finds a place in column No. 12(2) regarding tenancy or column No. 12(3) regarding mode of cultivation. For the agricultural years 1970-71 to 1974-75, the name of petitioner has been shown in column No. 12(2) and column No. 12(3) is left blank. It is pertinent to note further that, the name of petitioner has been shown in the said column No. 12 (2) only on the basis that, petitioner himself has sworn to an Affidavit before the Land Tribunal on 22nd October 1986 stating that, he had purchased the right of cultivation of the land in question for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 in auction. Thereafter, the right of cultivation was not auctioned. Further, it is the case of petitioner that, he has cultivated the land in question on ‘wara’ basis under Archak Laxminarayan Achar from the agricultural year 1967-68 onwards. Further, he has admitted in unequivocal terms that, there is no written lease deed in that behalf – to show that, he was cultivating the land on ‘wara’ basis and was paying ‘wara’ to Archak Laxminarayana Achar. The Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority have considered in detail these vital relevant entries in the RTC and referred that, they do not accept the stand taken by petitioner that, he is entitled for grant of occupancy rights on the basis of the entries found in the RTC from agricultural years 1970-71 to 1974-75 and have given a specific finding, holding that, petitioner has failed to establish that, he was cultivating the said land as tenant on the relevant dates, referred above. The said concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities is, after careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available in the original records referred above.
6. Further, one more important aspect to be taken into consideration is that, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore passed an order dated 30th June 1977 in proceedings bearing No. A5-VI(K-23/77-78) declaring that, the land in question has been granted in the name of deity, Sri. Anjaneya Swamy. The said order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner has become final since the same has not been assailed by petitioner nor has he pleaded a case before both the authorities. When such is the case, after remand, there was no occasion for the Land Tribunal, Chintamani to club Form No. 1 filed by Tahsildar and Muzrai Officer for registration of occupancy rights in favour of deity, as per the directions of this Court in the writ petition referred above. This application has been disposed of by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam, Bangalore as far back as in the year 1977 itself and the order passed by this Court for remand is in the year 1984. This fact has been intentionally and deliberately suppressed by the petitioner before this Court and obtained the order from this Court. When the petitioner was continuously litigating the matter before the authorities since decades, was fully aware of these aspects and was well within the knowledge of these developments at the time of passing the order by this Court in 1984 in the aforesaid writ petition. Intentionally and deliberately he has brought to the notice of this Court when the order was made by this Court in 1984. Hence, the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel that, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside for non compliance of the order passed by this Court in the year 1984, holds no water. Therefore, the question of considering the claim of petitioner for registration of occupancy rights does not arise. Once the land has been registered in the name of deity i.e. Sri. Anjaneyaswamy temple, there is no land available and the question of considering the case of petitioner for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the same land does not arise, as rightly held by the Land Tribunal in its impugned order and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Further, when this Court asked a specific question to Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner as to whether he has got an iota of document such as lease deed, gutta receipt, etc. at least before this Court to establish as to, on what basis petitioner was cultivating the land as tenant for the relevant period, he was unable to answer for the same, but on the contrary, he relied upon Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act and vehemently submitted that, a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner. The said reply of the Learned Senior Counsel cannot be accepted nor there is any substance in the same for the reason that, there is absolutely no documentary evidence in support of the oral submission, Therefore, I do not find any justification or good grounds to interfere in the impugned orders passed by both the authorities. Both the authorities, after thorough evaluation of oral and documentary evidence and after appreciation of the material available on file, have rightly rejected the claim of petitioner. Hence, in view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities against the petitioner, interference by this in exercise of Section 121-A of the Act is not justifiable nor petitioner has made out any good grounds to entertain the instant revision petition. It is well settled principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2005 (6) Kar. L.J. 149 (SC) that, “The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings unless it is found that the findings recorded by the lower Court are perverse or there has been non application of mind”. Further, in the case of Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 3 of its judgment has held as follows:-
“It is well settled position in law that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below by taking a different view of the evidence. The High Court is empowered only to interfere with the findings of fact, if the findings are perverse or there has been a non- appreciation or non-consideration of the material _evidence on record by the Courts below. Simply becauseanother view of the evidence may be taken is no ground by the High Court to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after careful perusal of the original records available on file, I do not find any error much less irregularity committed by the Land Tribunal or the Appellate Authority in passing the impugned orders. The Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority, after critical evaluation of the evidence of the parties and the documentary evidence, have passed the impugned orders. The reasons assigned by the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority is, after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, interference by this Court is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds made out by petitioner for interference.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and taking into consideration the factual legal aspects of the matter, as stated supra, interference in the well considered orders passed by both authorities in uncalled for. Therefore, the instant revision petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
9. Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3 within two weeks from today.