M. P. CHINNAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THE father of the petitioner late Thimmaiah was cultivating the agricultural land bearing S. No. 165/3 measuring 0-19 guntas situated at dodda Malur Village as a tenant under the respondent 1 who was admittedly the owner during the undisputed point of time. The said Thimmaiah filed Form No. 7 in L. R. M. No. 33 of 1976-77 on the file of the land Tribunal, Madhugiri which was rejected by it vide order dated 15-7-1986 solely on the ground that the respondent filed resumption application which came to be allowed by the learned District Judge, tumkur. As against that order, the said Thimmaiah-father of the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, tumkur, in LRA No. 162 of 1987. The said appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30-9-1988. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred this petition under Section 121-A of the Act.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent at the very outset vehemently argued that the scope of the revision filed under Section 121-A of the Land Reforms Act is very limited and more so when it is filed as against the concurrent findings of the authorities. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Supreme court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil v Ramchandra Nago Patil (dead) by L. Rs and Another, wherein their Lordships have held that for entertaining a revision, there must be error of law on the face of the record. Presumption which was said to arise in the record of rights was before the deputy Collector as well as the Mamlatdar. If the authority entrusted with adjudication goes into the question and assesses the same, the decision may be right or wrong but that will not go to show that there is any error of law on the face of the record. In view of this decision, it is necessary to find out as to whether there is any error of law on the face of the record calling for interference by this Court. As stated above, both the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority were swayed away by the fact that the District Judge, Tumkur has passed an order for resumption of land in favour of the respondent.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned munsiff has rejected the application of this respondent in R. L. C. No. 161 of 1968 by order dated 25-7-1970 as against that order, the respondent preferred appeal before the District Judge in L. R. T. C. No. 14 of 1970. The learned District Judge has passed an order allowing the appeal on 4-2-1971. These facts are not in dispute. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has however contended that the order came to be passed by the District Judge without notice to the petitioner. From the perusal of the order of the District Judge it is abundantly clear that the respondents therein were not served with notice. No witness has been examined before the Appellate Authority to show that the notice was duly served on the father of the petitioner who were the respondents before the District Judge. However, that order was not questioned by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the question is as to whether there was proper surrender of possession by the petitioner or his father. To substantiate that possession was delivered, the respondent has produced Ex. R. 7, dated 8-12-1970. The petitioner has clearly stated in his evidence before the Appellate Authority that the respondent has obtained the signature on a blank sheet and the contents were not written. However, neither the attesting witnesses nor the scribe of Ex. P. 7 was examined before the Appellate Authority. However, from the perusal of this document, it appears that the father of the petitioner has agreed to surrender possession of the property. Even accepting this document for the sake of arguments, the question is whether there is a proper surrender of the property as contemplated under the Land Reforms Act involved in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document