JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the civil revision filed under Section 121 (A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

Challenge in the petition was to the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad (in short Appellate Authority) Respondent no. 3 had filed the petition. The Appellate Authority set aside the grant of occupancy rights as granted by the Land Tribunal, Dharwad (in short the Tribunal).

2. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

Appellant is the owner of suit property measuring 2 acres 30 guntas in Survey no. 179 and an extent of 2 acres and 15 guntas in Survey no. 106. The said land was under the tenancy of respondent no. 2 who had surrendered both the suit properties to the appellants father. To substantiate such stand the appellant produced the following documents:

(a) Deed of surrender dated 10.3.1955.

(b) The statement of the father of the appellant dated 22.8.1955 before the Tehsildar.

(c) The statement of the respondent dated 6.9.1955 before the Tehsildar.

(d) The possession certificate in the presence of village Accountant and Panchas on 8.12.1955.

(e) The mutation entry dated 8.12.1955 by the Tehsildar.

3. At the relevant point of time the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short the Bombay Tenancy Act) was in operation in the Slate of Karnataka. Section 5(3)(b) of the said .Act reads as follows:

"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1 )-

(a) xxxxxx

(b) a tenant may terminate the tenancy at any time by surrendering his interest as a tenant in favour of the landlord:

Provided that such surrender shall be in writing and shall be verified before the Mamlatdar in the prescribed manner."

4. Apart from the above documents, mutation entries in the records in respect of both the properties are in favour of the appellants since 1955. However, due to inadvertence when the order was passed on 6.9.1955, Survey no.1 06 was not recorded. However, all the documents including the mutation records, deed of surrender which was verified by the Tehsildar, statement of parties, possession certificate, panchanama are in respect of both the properties. Taking advantage of the said order, respondent no. 2 filed an application for grant of occupancy rights after amendment to the Act w.e.f. 1.3.1974. The Appellate Authority after considering the facts on record, recorded the findings that there has been valid surrender in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act in the year 1955 itself. It was, however, got recorded in the name of the appellant in the revenue records since 1955 without any objection from respondent no. 2 and as on 1.3.1974 the respondent no. 2 was not cultivating the land at the tenancy. In fact, in the revenue records name of appellant is recorded as cultivator of his own lands.

5. A revision was filed before the High Court by respondent no. 2. The High Court came to hold that the surrender was in respect of Survey no. 179. Reference was made only to the order of the Tehsildar where reference was made only to Survey no. 179. It was, therefore, held that respondent no. 2 is entitled to grant occupancy rights in respect of 2 acres and 15 guntas in respect of Survey no. 106 renumbered as 208.

6. Stand of the appellant in the present appeal is that the High Court should not have exercised revisional jurisdiction interfering with the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. The High Court, it is submitted, did not notice the requirement of Section 5(3)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, according to which the requirement for valid surrender namely; firstly, surrender deed has to be executed and secondly it has to be verified by the Tehsildar/Mamalatdar (for Karnataka).

The deed or surrender was verified by the Tehsildar whereby the Tehsildar has verified as under:

"The right of a tenant and the effects of surrende