ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. Petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 31st October, 1989 on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore in No. ALRA.5/88, allowing and setting aside the order passed by Land Tribunal, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanakapura, dated 17th February, 1987 in proceeding Nos. INM.40, 41, 42, 43 and 44/1984-85, has presented the instant revision petition.
2. The instant revision petition is filed only insofar as it relates to setting aside the grant made in favour of petitioner in respect of Sy. No. 17 measuring 5 acres registered by the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanakapura by its order dated 17th February, 1987.
3. The petitioner claiming to be tenant, had filed Form 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 17 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas, situate at Madivala Village. The said application had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanakapura along with applications filed by other claimants on 17th February, 1987 and the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanakapura registered the occupancy rights in favour of petitioner in respect of an extent of 5 acres in Sy. No. 17 of Madivala Village and rejected the claim made by other claimants. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by Land Tribunal, Kanakapura, dated 17th February, 1987, the fourth respondent herein filed the appeal on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter called the “Appellate Authority”) and the same was numbered as ALRA.5/88. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Authority on 31st October, 1989. The Appellate Authority, after considering the material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has allowed the appeal in part and set aside the order passed by Land Tribunal, Kanakapura Taluk, Kanakapura only insofar as it related to grant of occupancy rights in respect of 5 acres in Sy. No. 17 of Madivala Village in favour of petitioner herein and rejected the claim of the appellant therein – fourth respondent herein. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31st October, 1989 passed by Appellate Authority, petitioner herein, felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition.
4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner in the instant revision petition is that, in the impugned order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside for not conducting proper enquiry and also for not giving specific finding as to whether the petitioner is a protected tenant or permanent tenant. Further, he submitted that, the said order of grant of occupancy rights by Land Tribunal in favour of petitioner has not been challenged by fourth respondent herein. Therefore, the order passed by Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside.
5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri M.R. Rajagopal for considerable length of time. After careful perusal of the material available on record including the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore, it is manifest on the face of the records and the order passed by the Appellate Authority that, the Appellate Authority has not committed any error of law, much less material irregularity in rejecting the claim of petitioner and setting aside the order passed by Land Tribunal and the finding given by the Appellate Authority is in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. It is significant to note that, the petitioner has filed Form 7, claiming to be sub-tenant, under the archak of the temple and he has not filed any application for registration of occupancy rights as a tenant. Only an application has been given to the Land Tribunal, requesting it to grant the occupancy rights in his favour. The said application had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal has registered the occupancy rights, without giving any reasons or finding and without even conducting any enquiry in strict compliance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules read with Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and rejected the claim of fourth respondent herein. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by Land Tribunal, the fourth respondent has filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has given a specific finding, holding that, the petitioner himself had stated in his earlier statement that, he was cultivating the said land as sub-tenant and presently, (then) he is not cultivating. He has not specifically stated as to from whom he had obtained the land on lease and from which date, he was cultivating the land as tenant and if at all he was not cultivating as on the date of statement made before the Land Tribunal, it should be presumed that, he has left cultivating the said land. Petitioner has also not produced any authenticated document to substantiate that, he was cultivating the said land as tenant. Further, the Appellate Authority has given a specific finding that, if the petitioner had taken the land on lease from the archak of the temple as stated in the alleged application, even then, he was not entitled to be registered as occupant, as the archak is not the Competent Authority to lease the land attached to the Muzrai institution. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has rightly opined that, the Land Tribunal has not conducted the enquiry before registering the occupancy rights in favour of petitioner and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The said finding/reasoning given by the Appellate Authority is in accordance with law. As a matter of fact, as per the mandatory provisions of the Act, the petitioner must take lease of the land from the Competent Authority, the Tahsildar or any person appointed on behalf of the Muzrai institution. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner before the Land Tribunal or before this Court that, he had filed his application in the prescribed form for grant of occupancy rights, or that he had taken the lease of the land in question from the Competent Authority for cultivating the said land as tenant. Moreover, petitioner himself has given a statement in unequivocal terms before the Land Tribunal that, he was cultivating the said land as sub-tenant and thereafter, he has left the cultivation of the said land. Further, it is also significant to note after microscopic evaluation of the original records available on file that, in the certified copy of the RTC extract issued by the Tahsildar, in respect of Sy. No. 17 for the agricultural years 1969-70 to 1973-74, which is very much available in the original records at red ink page 34, at column 12(2), the name of petitioner has not been shown as cultivating the said land as tenant. Therefore, it can be derived that, the petitioner except making oral statement, has not produced any piece of document to establish that, he was cultivating the said land as tenant. Hence, in view of the entries found in the RTC extract available in the original records at ink page 34, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that, the petitioner has not produced any authenticated document to establish that, he is cultivating the said land as tenant and therefore, the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and set aside the order passed by Land Tribunal, insofar as it related to grant of occupancy rights in favour of petitioner herein in respect of Sy. No. 17 measuring an extent of 5 acres situate at Madivala Village, by assigning cogent reasons with reference to credible documentary evidence available on file. In view of the admission made by petitioner himself, the said reasoning/finding given by the Appellate Authority is in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Karnataka Land Reforms (Appellate Authority) Rules, 1986. Therefore, I do not find any good grounds or justification to interfere in the well-considered order passed by the Appellate Authority, nor the petitioner has made out any case for interference.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the revision petition filed by petitioner is dismissed as devoid of any merits.