Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 229 (KAR)

K. MOHIYUDDIN KHAN v. A. N. MALLIKARJUNA

1988-06-22

M.P.CHANDRAKANTARAJ

body1988
CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision under Section 121-A of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act in short') is by the unsuccessful tenant- applicant who failed to get occupancy rights both before the Land Tribunal Alur Taluk, hassan District as well as the Appellate authority constituted under the Act for Hassan district. ( 2 ) THE Tribunal found that the applicant- revision Petitioner had opportunity to manipulate the Record of Rights and shown his own name as cultivator in the relevant column of the R. T. C. register. The conclusion was further strengthened by the fact that there were numerous contradictions in the testimony of the applicant before the land Tribunal. He, for instance, admitted that the land which he took on lease from one Nagarajappa was previously tenanted by one Harijan who died. He also stated that he took it on lease in 1972. Again in the cross- examination he admitted that he was cultivating the land for about six years prior to the date of his giving evidence which would make it the year 1968. The oral evidence which he adduced in support of his tenancy was disbelieved by the Tribunal as it found that the applicant- revision petitioner allowed the witness to cultivate the land as a reward. Further, corroborating evidence was held to be tutored whose testimony could not be relied upon. ( 3 ) IN such matters the trial Court or tribunal, as the case may be, which recorded the findings is best judge of the evidence. ( 4 ) WHEN the appellate authority also has concurred, more or less on the same reasoning, with the finding recorded by the tribunal, this Court in revision should not lightly set aside the findings unless this Court is compelled to do so on account of any error of jurisdiction or illegality in the procedure followed or if there is misdirection in appreciating the evidence on record. ( 5 ) WHEN such ingredients are not present, this Court will not interfere with the order in question while exercising revisional jurisdiction which is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction. ( 6 ) REVISION Petition is accordingly rejected. --- *** --- .W