The evidentiary value of a certificate of purchase cannot be disregarded unless it is inaccurate on its face or obtained by fraud.

By the impugned order the Land Board held that the claim of tenancy set up by the revision petitioner on the strength of a certificate of purchase was inadmissible. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this finding is contrary to the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Mathew v Taluk Land Board, 1979 KLT 601. The Supreme Court stated that the evidentiary value of certificate of purchase could not be disregarded except where it was inaccurate on its face or obtained by fraud. This is what the court stated:

"It would thus appear that even though the certificate of purchase issued under sub-section (1) of S.72K is conclusive proof of the assignment of the right, title and interest of the landowner in favour of the holder in respect of the holding concerned under subsection (2), that only means that no contrary evidence shall be effective to displace it, unless the so-called conclusive effective proof is inaccurate on its face, or fraud can be shown Halsbury' s Laws of England, fourth edition. 'Vol. 17, page 22 paragraph 28). It may be stated that 'inaccuracy on the face of the certificate is not as wide in its connotation as an'error apparent on toe face of the record'. It will not therefore be permissible for the Board to disregard the evidentiary value of the crepitate of purchase merely on the ground that it has not been issued on a proper appreciation or consideration of the evidence on record, or that. the Tribunal's finding suffers from any procedural error. What sub-section (2) of Sv 72 K provides is an irrebuttable presumption of law, and it may well be regarded as a rule of substantive law. But even so, for reasons already stated, it does not thereby take away the jurisdiction of the Taluk Land Board to make an order under S 85(5) after taking into consideration the 'conclusive' evidentiary value of the certificate of purchase according to S.72K(2) as far as it goes."

2. In the present case the purchase certificate had been issued in respect of 6.30 acres including an area of 2.48 acres in question in August, 1976 This certificate was held to be fraudulent for two reasons: (1) it was applied for only in February, 1976 and not earlier; and (2) the authorised officer's enquiry revealed that the petitioner was not in possession of this land before 1-1-1970.

3. As regards the finding that the purchase certificate was applied for and obtained only in 1976, counsel for 'the petitioner rightly points out that there was no delay because the statute allowed time till 31st March, 1976 to seek purchase certificate. There is therefore no delay on the part of the petitioner in seeking the certificate and the fact that it was sought only in February, 1976 is not a relevant ground to hold that it was fraudulently obtained.

4. The other ground is that the enquiry conducted by the authorised officer did not disclose that the land was in the possession of the petitioner as on 1-1-1970. This is a finding of fact inconsistent with the finding of fact by another quasi-judicial authority under the statute, namely, the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was in possession of the land as a cultivating tenant as on 1-1-1970 and that she was entitled to a purchase certificate. There are inconsistent findings on the same point by appreciation of evidence by two authorities set up under the same statute. This is not the type of situation which will lead to the conclusion that the certificate was obtained by fraud. It is not open to the Board to disregard the evidentiary value of a certificate issued on the basis of determination of a fact by a Tribunal authorised to find the fact. To cancel or disregard such a certificate, there must be more than a finding of fact by fresh appreciation of evidence. The subsequent finding must disclose that the earlier finding was vitiated by reason of fraud in the sense that relevant facts had been deliberately suppressed. There is no such finding by the Board.

5. In the circumstanc