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 reco