ORDER
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. These two revision petitions are filed by the petitioner against the common order dated 20-9-1988 passed by the land reforms Appellate Authority. Petitioner and respondent 3 are common in both these petitions. They were rival claimants seeking grant of occupancy rights for the same lands among others. The lands involved in these petitions are Sy. Nos. 29 and 31 of Vaddinakoppa Village in Sirsi Taluk.
2. Petitioner filed application before the Land Tribunal seeking grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 7-26 acres in Sy. No. 29 and 2-10 acres in Sy. No. 31 while 3rd respondent filed application for 3-33 acres in Sy. No. 29 and 2-25 acres in Sy. No. 31. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 29-12-1981 granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner. In respect of 3rd respondent, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights for Sy. No. 31 and rejected the claim for Sy. No. 29. Against the rejection, 3rd respondent filed Appeal No. DAA.AP 60 of 1986. Petitioner filed Appeal No. DAA.AP 81 of 1986 against the grant of occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent in Sy. No. 31. The Appellate Authority clubbed both the appeals and by a common order dated 20-9-1988 allowed the appeal of 3rd respondent and granted occupancy rights in his favour in respect of Sy. No. 29 which was rejected by the Land Tribunal. The extent of 7-26 acres for which occupancy right granted to the petitioner is reduced to 3-33 acres. The challenge made to the grant of occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent to an extent of 3-33 acres in Sy. No. 29 was rejected by dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. These revision petitions are filed against the said common order of the Appellate Authority.
3. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority.
4. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of Sy. No. 31 oh the basis of the admission made by Seetharama Gurunath Hegde and Narasimha Mahabaleshwar Hegde. The Tribunal has not assigned any reason for rejecting occupancy right in her favour in respect of Sy. No. 29. The Appellate Authority has considered the interim order dated 6-7-1977 granted by the Land Tribunal against the petitioner and in favour of the 3rd respondent, which was affirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 6115 of 1977. It has also considered the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the 3rd respondent and the documentary evidence such as the receipt for having hired pump to lift water to the lands in question, the receipt for having purchased fertiliser and the receipt pertaining to the crushing the sugarcane grown in the lands. These documents had been produced by respondent 3 for obtaining the interim order. From the interim order, it is clear that 3rd respondent was cultivating the lands in question on the appointed date 1-3-1974.
5. The 3rd respondent claimed the tenancy through the petitioner for half extent in both the lands. Mr. Suresh S. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that creation of sub-tenancy is prohibited under the Bombay Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1948 and hence the sub-tenancy claimed by the 3rd respondent ought not to have been entertained. The contention is wholly untenable. Under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, even sub-tenant is entitled to occupancy rights. For that purpose, all that is required to be considered is whether the tenant was cultivating the land as on 1-3-1974 or immediately prior thereto. The Appellate Authority categorically holds that petitioner has not proved that he is tenant of entire extent of the lands in question.
6. In view of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the 3rd respondent, rightly the Appellate Authority did not give importance to the presumptive value under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964 to the entries in the R.T.C. in respect of the land in question. Even the evidence adduced in favour of the petitioner by M.C. Wodeyar, the President of the temple to which the lands in question belong, was disbelieved by the Appellate Authority as he, being a Member of the Land Tribunal at the relevant time, was party to the interim order granted in favour of the 3rd respondent and against the petitioner. The Appellate Authority was justified in holding that he having granted interim order against the petitioner, his evidence in favour of the petitioner was rightly disbelieved holding that the same is not natural and does not disclose the details of the cultivation. The Appellate Authority has rightly allowed the appeal of the 3rd respondent after setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal in not granting occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of the land in question. The common order passed by the Appellate Authority under revision is well-considered with valid and cogent reasons. The same does not warrant interference with the limited revisional power of this Court under Section 121A of the Act.
7. The revision petition are dismissed.