CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS Land Reforms Revision Petition is filed by the tenant to challenge the order dated 20-11-1989 in appeal No. L. R. A. 206 of 1987 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, bijapur. In passing the said order, while allowing the appeal of the respondent 1, the Appellate Authority had confirmed the order dated 30-10-1987 passed in Case No. TNC. SR. 375-289 of the respondent 3-Land Tribunal, rejecting the grant of occupancy right to the appellant. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri R. L. Patil appearing for M/s. Patil and Patil and Sri R. B. Anneppanavar appearing for the contesting respondent 2. The respondent 1 having been served with notice has remained absent before Court. The respondent 3-Land Tribunal, Basavana bagewadi is also served with notice and it has remained absent before Court. The learned Government Pleader Smt. Meenakumari is therefore directed to take notice for the said respondent 3 and hence she has represented the said respondent ( 3 ) I have also perused the case records both of the Appellate Authority as well as the Land Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner while taking me through the facts of the case submitted as hereunder: that the petitioner had filed Form 7 for claiming occupancy right in respect of 13 acres 39 guntas out of the total extent of 28 acres 14 guntas of Hanumapura village by filing Form 7 before the respondent 3-Land Tribunal. That at the first instant, the land Tribunal had granted the occupancy right to the petitioner and that the same was challenged before this Court in Writ petition No. 13764 of 1981, wherein the order granting occupancy right to the petitioner was quashed, for the writ petition was allowed by this Court on 14-11-1983 and this Court while doing so directed the Land Tribunal to hold a fresh enquiry in the matter of claim of the petitioner. That thereafter, the Land Tribunal had held the second round of tenancy proceedings. The petitioner had examined himself and further examined two other witnesses one Basappa Siddappa Murnal and another Erappa Bilagi in support of his claim, whereas the contesting respondent 2 had examined himself and examined two other witnesses, one Shankara Math and another Shivappa pujari before the Land Tribunal. The petitioner had examined himself and further examined two other witnesses one Basappa Siddappa Murnal and another Erappa Bilagi in support of his claim, whereas the contesting respondent 2 had examined himself and examined two other witnesses, one Shankara Math and another Shivappa pujari before the Land Tribunal. The contesting respondent 2 had also produced before the Land Tribunal two stamped receipts dated 9-8-1970 and 10-7-1965 stated to have been executed by the revision petitioner to the effect that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was given by way of loan by the petitioner to the respondent 2 on interest at 2 per cent per month and further to the effect that the revision petitioner had acknowledged the repayment of the said sum and farther agreed for getting his name deleted from the pahanis. ( 4 ) THE Land Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on record both oral and documentary had rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of occupancy right. Having been aggrieved thereto by the order dated 13-10-1987 passed by the Land tribunal at the second instance, the petitioner had filed an appeal in No. LRA 206 of 1987 before the Appellate Authority. That the Appellate Authority after hearing the parties and on consideration of the material evidence on record of the Land tribunal, while dismissing the appeal of the revision petitioner had confirmed the order of rejection of his claim passed by the land Tribunal. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri Patila rgued that the order passed by the Land Tribunal at the first instance as well as by the Appellate Authority at the second was not based on the proper appreciation of the evidence on record. While adverting to the evidence adduced by the petitioner as well as his witnesses, Sri Patil argued that the petitioner in examining himself and further examining two other witnesses had successfully proved that the petitioner was cultivating the subject land on tenancy basis on the basis of half crop share. He had also argued that both the witnesses examined by the revision petitioner by name Basappa and Erappa Bilagi, the adjacent owners of the subject land had fully supported the case of the revision petitioner by deposing before the Land Tribunal that the revision petitioner was cultivating the subject land on crop share basis. He had also argued that both the witnesses examined by the revision petitioner by name Basappa and Erappa Bilagi, the adjacent owners of the subject land had fully supported the case of the revision petitioner by deposing before the Land Tribunal that the revision petitioner was cultivating the subject land on crop share basis. It is also his submission that the revision petitioner had also produced the pahanis for the period from 1964-65 down to the year 1988-89 wherein it had been shown that the revision petitioner was cultivating the subject land on half crop share basis indicating therein the mode of cultivation as 'mode 4'. Sri Patil in this regard had also advanced an argument that the Land Tribunal had totally failed to appreciate that under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act there arose a presumption in favour of the petitioner in the absence of strong rebuttal evidence to say that the entries therein were true and correct and they depicted the true situation. Sri Patil further argued that the contesting respondent 2 had not dislodged that statutory presumption available to the revision petitioner either by examining himself or examining two other witnesses. While adverting to the two receipts the contesting respondent 2 had produced before the Land Tribunal, Sri Patil submitted that the respondent 2 had not proved the said receipts before the Land tribunal inasmuch as that the respondent 2 had not proved that the L. T. Ms. those were affixed on the said receipts were in fact affixed by the revision petitioner himself. According to Sri Patil, examining the scribe and yet another witness who are in no way connected with the execution of the said document before the land Tribunal is of no consequence and relief to the respondent 2 when the very L. T. M. on the said two receipts were emphatically denied by the revision petitioner before the Land tribunal. Yet another situation Sri Patil highlighted before me is that the ROR came into existence with the wardi of the respondent 2 himself, for the same is very well borne on the column 2 of the entry. Therefore, according to Sri Patil, in the said circumstances, the Land Tribunal would have naturally granted the occupancy right instead of rejecting the claim of the revision petitioner. Therefore, according to Sri Patil, in the said circumstances, the Land Tribunal would have naturally granted the occupancy right instead of rejecting the claim of the revision petitioner. ( 6 ) WHILE turning to the impugned order passed by theappellate Authority, Sri Patil argued that the Appellate authority had once again entered into the very same error having not rightly appreciated the above evidence the parties have produced before the Land Tribunal. He pointedly argued that when it was specifically suggested to the revision petitioner in cross-examination of the witnesses Shankrayya Math that the l. T. Ms. on the stamped receipts were not of the revision petitioner, the Appellate Authority observed in the impugned order that the revision petitioner had not denied the execution of the said two receipts. Yet another aspect the had pointed out is that the Appellate Authority would not have found fault with the pahani entries by observing that the said entries were not entered in consonance with Section 109 of the Land Revenue act, for according to him, it was totally outside the domain of the land Tribunal or of the Appellate Authority to look into the correctness or genuineness or otherwise of the pahani entries. In support of that argument of his, Sri Patil had also relied upon sannarangappa v Land Tribunal, Pavagada and Another , wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that under section 112 of the Land Reforms Act, the powers to be exercised by the Land Tribunal are enumerated and in the said power enumerated, there is no power for the Land Tribunal to hold that a particular entry in the record of rights was genuine or not. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, Sri Patil prayed that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the Land Tribunal be set aside and in the process, this Court be pleased to allow the Form 7 filed by the revision petitioner before the Land Tribunal. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, Sri Patil prayed that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the Land Tribunal be set aside and in the process, this Court be pleased to allow the Form 7 filed by the revision petitioner before the Land Tribunal. ( 8 ) AS against the above argument advanced, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 2-Sri anneppanavar argued that both the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority had rightly and concurrently held that the revision petitioner was not entitled to grant of occupancy right since he had occupied the subject land under a loan transaction evidenced by the two receipts dated 10-7-1965 and 9-8-1970 produced by the respondent 2 before the Land tribunal. According to Sri Anneppanavar, the said two receipts were successfully proved before the Land Tribunal, for the petitioner not only examined himself in support of his case but he had also examined the scribe Shankarayya Math. Sri anneppanavar had also taken me through the said two receipts borne on the records of the Land Tribunal. While referring to the same he submitted that it is borne on the said two receipts that it is only when the loan transaction entered into by the revision petitioner on the one side and the respondent 2 on the other, he had occupied the subject land and that there was no relationship of tenancy between the parties and that the scribe had clearly deposed before the Land Tribunal that the revision petitioner had executed the said two receipts and the contents thereof was also read over to him, no matter that it was not stated there in the receipts. Sri Anneppanavar had also pointed out that in both the two receipts the revision petitioner had affixed his L. T. M. and the said two receipts were also attested by the attesting witnesses. Sri Anneppanavar had also pointed out that in both the two receipts the revision petitioner had affixed his L. T. M. and the said two receipts were also attested by the attesting witnesses. Sri Anneppanavar also argued that when the said two receipts spoke to the effect that the cultivation by the revision petitioner was on loan basis, the pahani entries showing the revision petitioner as a cultivator under 'mode 4' totally stood rebutted and therefore, question of the statutory presumption available in favour of the revision petitioner under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act was totally a misconception; that apart, he had also pointed out that the said record of rights came into existence without there being a mutation entry as contemplated under Section 129 of the Land Revenue Act. In that view of the matter, he submitted that the Appellate Authority had rightly rejected the said pahani entries that came into existence in favour of the revision petitioner. Sri Anneppanavar had also cited before me a reported decision of this Court in Parayya irayya v Land Tribunal, Mudhol and Others. The said decision is on the construction of a deed of lease and the Division Bench of this Court in the said decision held as under: "karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (10 of 1962), section 48-A Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sections 58 and 105 Deed Construction If lease. Where under the deed respondent 3 had taken possession of the lands from the appellant agreeing to render the lands fit for cultivation, improve the existing wells, cultivate the lands and take all the usufruct thereof for a period of 12 years without paying any premium or rent to the owner of the lands and to re-deliver them after the stipulated time, Held, the document was a self-redeeming mortgage and respondent 3 in possession was not a tenant and the provisions of the Land Reforms act had no application. There being no stipulation for payment of any premium or rent by respondent 3 to appellant, the deed cannot be held to be a lease (1976)1 kar. L. J. 98, approved and AIR 1977 SC 105 , dist. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the issue whether the deed was not a deed of lease and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties". L. J. 98, approved and AIR 1977 SC 105 , dist. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the issue whether the deed was not a deed of lease and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties". ( 9 ) WHILE summing up the argument Sri Anneppanavar, submitted that the powers of this Court under Section 121-A is limited to appreciate whether both the authorities had committed any illegality in the matter of passing of the orders or whether any irregularity committed by both the authorities in the matter of conducting the proceedings or in other words, Sri anneppannavar submitted that this Court should be slow in interfering with the impugned order when the same was in confirmation of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. ( 10 ) IN the light of the above arguments advanced, the point for my consideration is whether the impugned order is in any way called for to be interfered with by this Court in the instant revision. ( 11 ) AT the threshold I have to point out here that the Appellate Authority had relied upon the appointment of the respondent 2 as a Village Accountant in the year 1976 as per order in No. EST. II. SR. 107 of 1976, dated 12-7-1976. Unfortunately, the said appointment order what the Appellate authority wanted to take assistance is not the part of the record before the Land Tribunal or either of the parties before the appellate Authority had adduced additional evidence to produce such an order. In such circumstances, I do not understand why the Appellate Authority is inspired to refer to the said transfer order in passing the impugned order. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent 2 had submitted that such an appointment order was produced by the respondent 2 before the appellate Authority. Even if it is true that it had been produced in the appeal by the respondent 2, I do not think that any cognisance can be taken thereof to sustain the impugned order, for the same was not part of the record as none spoke thereto. ( 12 ) IN the course of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, at page 19 therein, the Appellate Authority had observed that there was no serious challenge by the revision petitioner denying the thumb impression in the two receipts produced by the respondent 2. ( 12 ) IN the course of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, at page 19 therein, the Appellate Authority had observed that there was no serious challenge by the revision petitioner denying the thumb impression in the two receipts produced by the respondent 2. But unfortunately, that was not the situation, for the revision petitioner while cross-examining shankarayya Math, it had been suggested to him that the l. T. Ms. found on the said two receipts were not of the revision petitioner; let apart, in the evidence of the revision petitioner before the Land Tribunal he had also denied execution of the said two receipts in favour of the respondent 2. In the said circumstances, in my considered view it was totally erroneous on the part of the Appellate Authority to observe that there was no challenge for the said two receipts. As a matter of fact, when there was serious challenge by the revision petitioner before the land Tribunal as to the very execution of the two receipts, what the respondent 2 would have done is to prove that the said two receipts were in fact actually executed by the revision petitioner himself. Further more, the respondent 2 had not even examined either of the attestors shown in the said two receipts. In the said circumstances, it was not correct on the part of the Appellate authority to observe that there was no challenge at all by the revision petitioner as against the said two receipts and that the same stands proved. ( 13 ) ANOTHER situation that I find in the impugned order is that when the authenticity of the mutation entry was not at all an issue before the Land Tribunal, much has been made out by the appellate Authority in passing the impugned order, for the appellate Authority had gone to the extent of observing that there would not have been a mutation entry without following section 129 of the Land Revenue Act. It is to be noted that the issue what was before the Land Tribunal was not the issue of correctness or otherwise of the mutation entry, but the issue of grant of occupancy right. It is to be noted that the issue what was before the Land Tribunal was not the issue of correctness or otherwise of the mutation entry, but the issue of grant of occupancy right. The Appellate Authority had gone to the extent of observing in the impugned order that neither the respondent 2 or for that matter, the revision petitioner had reported the matter to the Competent Authority for change of the mutation entry in the name of the appellant, but the truth is that such a mutation entry in fact came to be entered on the 'wardi' given by the contesting respondent himself and the fact whereof was very well reflected in the ROR. The Appellate authority had not given a finding as to why the statutory presumption under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act was not available to the revision petitioner when there was no rebuttal evidence worth the name adduced by the respondent 2 before the land Tribunal. ( 14 ) I have carefully considered both the orders passed by the Land Tribunal as well as the impugned order passed by the appellate Authority. In passing the impugned order, the appellate Authority had totally failed to take a judicial notice of the situation that with the pahani entries standing in the name of the revision petitioner right from the year 1964-65 down to the year 1988-89, there was statutory presumption available under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act in favour of the revision petitioner to say that he was cultivating the subject land under the respondent 2 on crop share basis. ( 15 ) IN the said circumstances, in my considered view, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is totally erroneous as the same is not based on material and clinching evidence in favour of the revision petitioner and therefore has to be interfered with by this Court in the instant revision; let apart, the Appellate Authority had also totally overlooked the situation that it was interpreting a beneficial piece of legislation in the land Reforms Act, primary object being abolition of absentee landlordism by granting land to the tiller. In the said circumstances, I hold that the impugned order passed by the appellate Authority is totally erroneous and therefore called for to be interfered with by this Court in the instant revision. In the said circumstances, I hold that the impugned order passed by the appellate Authority is totally erroneous and therefore called for to be interfered with by this Court in the instant revision. Therefore, I pass the following order: the impugned order dated 20-11-1989 in Appeal No. 206 of 1987 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur, whereby while dismissing the appeal of the revision petitioner it had confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the revision petitioner in Form 7, is hereby set aside. ( 16 ) IN view of the above conclusions I reach, the order dated 30-10-1987 passed by the respondent 3-Land Tribunal, basavana Bagewadi in Case No. TNC. SR. 375 + 289, whereby it had rejected the claim of the revision petitioner in respect of 13 acres 39 guntas in Sy. No. 49 of Hanumapura Village of basavana Bagewadi Taluk, is also set aside. ( 17 ) IT is hereby held that the revision petitioner is a tenant within the meaning of Section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act and therefore he is entitled to for grant of occupancy right in the hands of the Land Tribunal in allowing his Form 7. ( 18 ) THE matter is therefore remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to pass appropriate order in the matter of claim of the revision petitioner in his Form 7 in the light of the above conclusions reached by this Court. It is made clear that the matter herein remanded is for the limited purpose of passing appropriate order in the matter of grant of occupancy right and occupancy certificate as the same is within the domain of the land Tribunal either to allow or reject the Form 7. ( 19 ) LET the Land Tribunal pass such an order after is suingnotices to all the parties concerned. ( 20 ) THE revision petition therefore succeeds and therefore accordingly allowed. No costs. --- *** --- .