The evidentiary value of the Civil Court's judgment, the presumptive value of revenue records, and the limited scope of interference in a revision petition under Sec. 121-A of the Act were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition under Sec. 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') has been filed challenging the order dtd. 24/5/1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharward (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Authority') in LRA No.783/1986, wherein the order dtd. 30/10/1980 passed by respondent no.3-Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights of the lands in dispute in favour of the petitioners has been set aside and granted in favour of respondents 1 and 2 herein.

2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition are, the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 had filed Form-1 under Sec. 11 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (for short, 'Act of 1977), for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands bearing R.S.No.137/3A and R.S.No.14/4A4B. The petitioners in their Form-1 filed on 5/12/1978 had claimed occupancy rights in respect of land bearing R.S.No.137/3A measuring 1 acre 8 guntas and R.S.No.14/4A4B measuring 3 acres 32 guntas, while respondents 1 and 2 in their Form-1 filed on 24/11/1978 had claimed occupancy rights in respect of land bearing R.S.No.137/3A measuring 24 guntas and R.S.No.14/4A4B measuring 1 acre 36 guntas.

3. Respondent no.3-Land Tribunal clubbed these two applications filed by the rival claimants and after holding an inquiry had granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners herein as claimed in their Form-1 and rejected the claim of respondents 1 and 2 vide order 30/10/1980. The said order was questioned by respondents 1 and 2 herein before this Court in W.P.No.9197/1984 and after establishment of the Appellate Authority, vide order dtd. 30/7/1986, the writ petition was transferred to the Appellate Authority and numbered as LRA No.783/1986.

4. The Appellate Authority thereafter, vide the order impugned herein dtd. 24/5/1989, has set aside the order passed by respondent no.3-Land Tribunal and has granted occupancy rights of the lands in dispute in favour of respondents 1 and 2 herein as claimed in their Form-1. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court in this revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents 1 and 2 had not filed any application under Sec. 11 of the Act of 1977, and therefore, the Appellate Authority was not justified in granting the occupancy rights of the lands in dispute in their favour. He submits that the Appellate Authority has erroneously relied upon the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in the suit O.S.No.33/1971 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for the relief of injunction and has come to a conclusion that respondents 1 and 2 were in possession and cultivation of the lands in dispute. He submits that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein having regard to Ss. 132 and 133 of the Act, and therefore, the Appellate Authority could not have placed reliance on the same. He submits that the Land Tribunal having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available before it, had rightly granted the occupancy rights of the lands in dispute in favour of the petitioners and the Appellate Authority has erred in setting aside the said order. He submits that the Appellate Authority having given a finding that the Land Tribunal had not recorded any reasons for granting occupancy rights of the lands in dispute in favour of the petitioners, ought to have remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal and should not have proceeded to consider the matter on merits and grant occupancy rights of the lands in dispute in favour of respondents 1 and 2. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of RACHAGOUDA GURUSIDDAPPA PATIL VS KAMABAI and OTHERS - AIR 1963 MYSORE 21, and in the case of KORAGA MARAKALA and ANOTHER VS SMT. KAMALA and OTHE