CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition under Section 121 A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner was the respondent before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act for Kolar District. Originally he had made four applications under Section 48 of the Act seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of four items of land which formed part of Serial no. 2 of Nayakarahalli village, Bangarpet taluk, Kolar District. Those applications were made between the date 29-12-1976 and 29-6-1979. The Land Tribunal came to allow those applications granting occupancy rights. Aggrieved by the same, respondents, moogappa and Ramanayaka filed Writ petition No. 21856/1982 in this Court seeking an order quashing the order of the Land tribunal granting occupancy rights. That came to be allowed and the Land Tribunal's order was quashed and the matter was remanded back for fresh enquiry. After fresh enquiry, the Land Tribunal again granted the occupancy rights in favour of the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-Moogappa alias Munivenkatappa filed the Appeal No. DLRA. R. 821/1986. The Appellate Authority on an application made by the appellant permitted additional evidence to be led by him. It also permitted the revision petitioner who was respondent before it to lead evidence parole and documentary. In the result, in addition to the evidence placed before the Land Tribunal, the Appellate Authority also received evidence both documentary and parole on the basis of which the order under revision was passed. The order has gone against the petitioner-tenant on the sole ground that he failed to establish his tenancy by leading cogent evidence in respect of 1-25 guntas of land in Serial No. 2 of Nayakarahalli village. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the evidence before the land Tribunal was in so far as it supported the case of the petitioner and his father who claim to be the tenants of the lands in question was that Ramanayaka-4th respondent before the Appellate Authority had granted lease in their favour. He was the Talari of the village and Serial No. 2 was service inam land which was re-granted to Ramanayaka who in turn for consideration of rent leased it to them on the basis of "vara". He was the Talari of the village and Serial No. 2 was service inam land which was re-granted to Ramanayaka who in turn for consideration of rent leased it to them on the basis of "vara". As against this, Ramanayaka's statement recorded before the Land Tribunal in the second enquiry was to the effect that he was a Talari who was re-granted Serial No. 2 which was in extent, about 5-38 guntas. He gave away 1-25 guntas of land to three of his brothers and remaining 4 acres and odd were retained by him for personal cultivation and that he did not give any part of his land on lease to any one else. Despite the contradictory statements recorded which it must be incidentally mentioned were never subjected to cross-examination by either side was totally ignored by the Land Tribunal and it proceeded to grant occupancy rights solely on the basis of pahani entry for the years 1973-74 which contained the revision petitioner's name in the tenancy column to the extent of 1-35 guntas. ( 4 ) IT is seen from the order that as many as four witnesses were examined for the respondent-appellant before the Appellate authority. They were his wife and three other neighbouring land owners. Number of documents were also marked. Third respondent examined himself and two other adjoining land owners and got some more documents marked in support of his claim. The Appellate Authority rejected the statements made before the Land Tribunal by both the parties on the ground that they were not subjected to any cross-examination and therefore would not institute good evidence. That really did not matter, so far as this court is concerned because as pointed out, the statements marked for the applicant- tenant as well as the landlords were in contradiction of each other and nothing could have turned those statements. The appellate Authority, has, however come to a different conclusion than the Land Tribunal rejecting the extracts produced by the revision petitioner on the ground that the entries therein are not reliable and as such no resumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act could came to the benefit of the petitioner. They have given more than reason for reaching that conclusion. One such reason to be mentioned. They have given more than reason for reaching that conclusion. One such reason to be mentioned. It is seen that the first entry in the record of rights in favour of the father of the petitioner appears only in the year 1971-72. No R. T. C. extracts relating to any earlier period or periods has been produced by the petitioner. In 1973-74, in place of the father's name the entry is made in the name of the petitioner as the tenant cultivating the land in an extent of 1-30 guntas. Similarly, in the succeeding years, some times, the father's name appears, for some time and the petitioner's name appears at other times. Their names appear along with the names of the land owners themselves. For that reason, the Appellate authority did not want to place any reliance on the R. T. C. extracts. ( 5 ) THEY have gone by the evidence tendered by the petitioner himself. They have found a number of contradictions in the statements. If statement in regard to his father cultivating the land before 1970 was noticed, then he would have commenced cultivation as a tenant in the year 1975. In the absence of any supporting document the parole evidence of the petitioner is disbelieved and conclusion reached that any lease created in the year 1970 would not make the petitioner a lawful cultivator on the land and therefore the petitioner would not be entitled to be registered as an occupant. ( 6 ) THAT reasoning is supported by the discussion of other evidence and regard being had to the fact that the appellant before the appellate Authority was not a man who could be said to be capable, in the sense he is believed to be blind and deaf and incapable of hard work. Therefore, it was his wife who got herself examined in support of their contention that she got the land in question cultivated with the help of the villagers and it was never cultivated by any tenant. Her version has been believed and the petitioner's version disbelieved, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant before the Appellate authority deposed that he had leased the land for some time. ( 7 ) THIS aspect was emphasised by Mr. M. S. Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Her version has been believed and the petitioner's version disbelieved, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant before the Appellate authority deposed that he had leased the land for some time. ( 7 ) THIS aspect was emphasised by Mr. M. S. Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Even if one were to take into consideration the evidence before the Land tribunal then respondent's statement that he took it back also should be believed. Therefore, I do not find any misdirection by the appellate Authority in appreciating the evidence on record as well as in appreciating the evidence recorded by it. In fact the Appellate Authority was in a far better position than this Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction in the matter of appreciating the material before it. ( 8 ) THE wide jurisdiction this Court may have, having regard to the language of Section 121a of the Act, nevertheless, it is not wide enough to convert itself into a Court of further appeal. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, no error of jurisdiction having been pointed out, this revision petition is rejected. --- *** --- .