ORDER
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17-1-1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority allowing the appeal filed by the first respondent and setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal by which occupancy right was granted in favour of 3rd respondent and consequently rejected Form 7.
2. The main ground of attack is that the Appellate Authority disbelieved the evidence of two witnesses – Nanjappa, the Neeraganti and accepting the evidence of Nanjundappa, the neighbouring villager. It is also contended that the evidence of Rangaswamy, the scribe of Exs. B. 1 and B. 2 was erroneously disbelieved and hence the order passed by the Appellate Authority is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
3. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Even though the Land Tribunal found that the name of first respondent was entered during the relevant period in the pahanis showing that she was cultivating the land in question, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights hi favour of the petitioner merely on the statements said to have, been given by the neighbouring landowners that the petitioner was cultivating the land. But, the Appellate Authority considered the entire matter in great detail and passed the order under revision reversing the order of the Land Tribunal. It has assigned valid and cogent reasons in support of its conclusions and the findings recorded.
4. In the first place the Appellate Authority considered the tenancy claim of the petitioner with reference to the statements recorded on three different stages. From paragraph 4 onwards of the order under revision, the Appellate Authority has wrongly mentioned as “appellant” instead of “applicant”. It is seen that when he was examined on 7-3-1979 he stated that he was cultivating the land since 1973. When he was examined on 5-8-1981 he stated that he was cultivating since about 10 years, which dates back to 1971. Again, when he was examined before the Appellate Authority on 5-3-1988 he stated that he was cultivating the land for the past 16 years, which dates back to 1972. On 3-2-1979 before the Tahsildar he has stated that he was cultivating the land about 5 years, which dates back to 1974. Thus, the petitioner himself was not sure since when he started cultivating the land as a tenant. His statements are contradictory. The Appellate Authority found that if his statements are true, then he was a minor at the time of his becoming a tenant and being minor he was not entitled to contract of tenancy. There is nothing wrong in the view taken by the Appellate Authority.
5. In the second place, the evidence of Nanjappa, Neeraganti, is to the effect that the petitioner was cultivating the land since 6 years, which dates back to 1975. It is after the coming into force of the Kar-nataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act and by that time creation of tenancy was barred. Hence, their statement of evidence is of no help to the petitioner.
6. In the third place, the receipts Exs. B. 1 and B. 2 relied upon by the petitioner were not admitted by the first respondent. The genuineness of the said documents had been examined by the Appellate Authority. They are the receipts for the alleged delivery of 6 pallas of jowar and 25 seers of bengal gram. The scribe of these receipts is R.W. 2-Ran-gaswamy. The said Rangaswamy was not examined to prove the contents of those two documents. Ex. B. 1 is dated 6-3-1974 and Ex. B. 2 is dated 20-2-1975. Thus, both the documents are subsequent to the appointed date 1-3-1974. They were not produced before the Land Tribunal. In fact, in paragraph 4 of this revision petition it is admitted that they had been produced earlier in W.P. No. 409 of 1979. If really these documents were in existence earlier, nothing prevented the petitioner to produce them. The Appellate Court elaborately considered the antecedents and evidence of R.W. 2 and rightly believed execution of receipts by the first respondent. Moreover, the petitioner has not produced any such document to show his tenancy prior to the appointed date even though he claimed to be a tenant either from 1971 or 1972 or 1973 or 1974, which is referred to in paragraph 4 of this order.
7. While the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner ignoring the entries in the revenue records and without considering any other document or evidence, the Appellate Authority considered both the documentary and oral evidences on record with reference to the tenancy claim of the petitioner and rightly set aside the order of the Land Tribunal. It being a well-considered order, no interference is warranted and the revision is devoid of merits.
8. In the result, the revision is dismissed.