The central legal point established is the importance of evidence demonstrating cultivation and occupation in determining tenancy rights, which can outweigh challenges based on mortgage deeds and revenue records.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. The respondents No.3 to 5 though served have remained absent.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 8/1/2013 passed by the second respondent-Land Tribunal vide order Annexure-A.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.216/2 measuring 05 acre 01 gunta situated in Chandaur Village, Sedam Taluk and one Bhimappa S/o Sayanna had filed an application in Form No.7 under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961 claiming occupancy rights of the aforesaid land and the Tribunal initially vide its order dtd. 21/8/1983 had allowed the said Form No.7 which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.5104/1982 and this Court had allowed the writ petition on 25/11/1983 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. Thereafterwards, the Tribunal had rejected the Form No.7 on 3/10/1987 and the said order was questioned by the claimant in Writ Petition No.30778/1993 which was allowed by this Court on 11/1/2001 and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh enquiry. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide the order impugned dtd. 8/1/2013 has once again granted occupancy rights of the land in question in favour of the claimant and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the mortgage deed produced by the petitioner before it. He submits that the property was handed over to the claimant under the mortgage deed and he was never a tenant in respect of the land in question. He submits that the entries made in the revenue records of the land in question have not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal and therefore the order impugned cannot be sustained.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader who opposes the petition submits that as on the relevant date the revenue entries in respect of the land in question stood in the name of the claimant. He also submits that the alleged mortgage deed produced by the petitioner has been considered by the Tribunal and rejected and therefore no fault can be found in the impugned order and accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully appreciated the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

7. The translated copy of the alleged mortgage deed which is in Urdu language has been produced by the petitioner before this Court as per Annexure-B1. The said document was also produced by him before the Tribunal. The Tribunal having appreciated the same, has observed that the said document is in a white paper and the same is not even written in a stamp paper nor the said document is registered. The Tribunal has also observed that the said document does not bear the signature of the claimant - Sri Bhimappa and it only bears the signature of the petitioner herein and therefore, the Tribunal has refused to place any reliance on the said document. In my considered view the said approach of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with.

8. Further the material on record would also go to show that the entries in the revenue records of the land in question stood in the name of the petitioner's predecessor only in the year 1967-68 and from the years 1968-69 upto 195-76 the name of the claimant Sri Bhimappa was found in column No.12(2) of the record of rights of the land in question as a cultivator. Therefore, on the relevant date i.e., 1/3/1974 the claimant's name was found in the revenue records of the land in question as a cultivator of the said land. The Tribunal having rightly appreciated this aspect of the matter has given a finding that the claimant has proved that he was a tenant in occupation and cultivation of the land in qu