ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner-landlord has filed this revision petition seeking, for setting aside the order passed by the erstwhile Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mandya District (in short 'the Appellate Authority'), in Appeal No. 269 of 1986 dated 25.6.1987 and to reject the applications of Respondents 1 and 2 by setting aside the order dated 16.5.1986 of the Land Tribunal in granting other occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 866/1, Srirangapatna Village, urging various facts and legal contentions. 2. Certain relevant facts are stated hereunder for considering the rival contentions in this revision petition. Respondents 1 and 2 filed Form No. 7 application on 15.6.1976 before the Land Tribunal, Srirangapatna (in short 'the Land Tribunal') claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question to an extent of one acre. The Land Tribunal after conducting an enquiry passed an order rejecting the claim of Respondents vide its order dated 29.7.1981. The Respondents filed the Writ Petition No. 20985 of 1981 before this Court challenging the legality of the said order before this Court. This Court after considering the merits of the case allowed the writ petition after setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal and the matter was remitted back to the Land Tribunal for re- consideration and disposal of the claim of the applicants on merits. After the matter was remitted back, the Respondents 1 and 2 have examined the witnesses in addition to examining themselves in support of their claims, Petitioner had also examined himself to substantiate his claim. The Land Tribunal vide its order dated 16.5.1986 considering the material evidence on record granted occupancy rights in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 after recording the finding of fact that the land in question is tenanted land and the applicants are tenants. Aggrieved of the said order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, on consideration of the material evidence on record after considering the legal submissions urged on behalf of the Petitioner it has affirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal, by giving elaborate reasons, in the impugned order which is self explanatory and the same is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and law laid by this Court with regard to the legal submissions urged by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Taraka Ram. Taraka Ram. The legality of the said order is challenged in this revision petition, urging following legal grounds. 3. The Appellate Authority has erred in holding that the appeal filed by Petitioner was time barred and dismissed the same without taking into consideration of fact that the order was not communicated to him by the Tribunal, and further from the date of communication of the order as on the date of filing of the appeal, the appeal filed by the Petitioner was in time. This important aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by the appellate authority. The second ground of attack of the impugned order is that, the appellate authority erred in not considering Section 122 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (in short 'the Act') correctly and prospectively and further it is contended that, the findings recorded by the Land Tribunal as well as appellate authority on various legal contentions raised before them contending that it is not a tenanted land as on 1.3.1974 and the land was not vested with the State Government and that the Respondents 1 and 2 were not eligible to file Form No. 7 application under Section 48-A of the Act and further appellate authority has erred in coming to the wrong conclusions and recording the finding against the Petitioner holding that the presumptive value to be attacked to the entries found in the RTC for the year 1973-74 in respect of the land in question was rebutted, which finding by the Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority are erroneous and further they have committed an error in holding that the Petitioner was required to corroborate the entries found in the RTC records during the relevant year, as the said finding and reasons assigned in the impugned order are wholly untenable in law. 4. Further, it is urged that the material evidence placed on record on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 before the Land Tribunal, there was a discrepancy with regard to Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for the reason that during the year 1973-74, name of Petitioner was entered in the RTC record in respect of land in question. Further, the conclusions arrived at by the Land Tribunal and the appellate authority holding that the land in question is a tenanted land and Respondents 1 and 2 are tenants without taking into consideration of the relevant provision Section 5 of the Land Reforms Act as there is prohibition for grant of lease or creating a lease after the Land Reforms Act, 1961, which has come into force with effect from 2.10.1965. Further, it is contended that the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority has erred in interpreting Section 2(34)(ii)(a) and in the absence of evidence on record in support of the Respondents 1 and 2 for creation of lease in their favour earlier to commencement of Amendment Act of 1974, which has come into force with effect from 1.3.1974 and the recording of finding by the Land Tribunal which have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority erroneously without proper appreciation and consideration of the case of the Petitioner. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel has requested this Court to grant the reliefs sought for in this revision petition. 5. The learned Counsel Mr. B.M. Krishna Bhat appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned orders on various grounds namely, that the Land Tribunal, which is a fact finding authority on the basis of appreciation of material evidence on record, after considering the rival claims and contentions has recorded a finding of fact holding that the land in question is a tenanted land and the Respondents 1 and 2 are tenants which findings are not shown to be erroneous in law by the Petitioner to this Court. The revision power of this Court is limited, it can only exercise its power only with regard to propriety of the order or irregularities in the proceedings. Neither of the grounds exist in the present case and therefore he has prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the original records of both the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority and perused the impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal as well as the appellate authority. Now, I proceed to pass the following order with reference to the legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties. 7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the original records of both the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority and perused the impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal as well as the appellate authority. Now, I proceed to pass the following order with reference to the legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties. 7. From the order-sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal it is disclosed that, after enquiry was concluded after the case was remitted back by this Court allowing the Writ petition referred to above filed by Respondents 1 and 2 the date was fixed for pronouncement of order as 12.5.1986, on which day case was adjourned to 16.5.1986. On these days, both Petitioner and Respondents 1 and 2 were present and signed the order sheet. A perusal of the said order sheet further establishes the fact that Petitioner had the knowledge of pronouncement of order passed by the Land Tribunal on 16.5.1986. This order was challenged by the Petitioner in appeal on 22.9.1986, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority has computed the period of limitation from the date of pronouncement of order till the date of filing the appeal. According to it, there was 120 days delay. The appellate authority has deducted 48 days for the time taken by the office of the Land Tribunal for granting the certified copy of the order. Further, 60 days time prescribed under the provisions of the Act, for filing the appeal is also deducted out of 120 days, even then it was found by the Appellate Authority there was 20 days delay in filing the appeal by the Petitioner. With reference to these aspects while answering the first point formulated by the Land Tribunal at paragraph-9, regarding the limitation for fixing the Appeal, the Appellate Authority has elaborately considered the relevant aspects of the matter and recorded the finding holding that there was a delay of 20 days in filing appeal by the Petitioner which has not been explained by the Petitioner by filing an application as required under Section 5 of the Act in the Appeal proceedings. Therefore, Appellate Authority was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. Therefore, Appellate Authority was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. The contentions of the Petitioner's Counsel that the Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, the same was restored on the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, therefore it was contended that the Appellate Authority has entertained the Appeal by condoning the delay, this contention was considered and answered the said contention against the Petitioner by assigning valid reasons. 8. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority, with reference to the other issues formulated at paragraph-7 has answered elaborately at paragraph-14 onwards, in the impugned order. With reference to the contention raised by the Petitioner that the land in question was granted in favour of the Petitioner in the year 1972 as per Saguvali Chit produced before the Land Tribunal and therefore, the land could not have been tenanted in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 as there is prohibition under Section 5 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the Appellate Authority has after proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the provisions of the Act referred to above has negatived the contention of the Petitioner by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The further contention of the Petitioner is that his name was entered in the RTC record in Column 12(2) of the RTC record for the year 1973-74 in respect of the land in question, which has got presumptive value to be attached, the provisions of Section 133 of the Act was elaborately considered at paragraphs 15 to 17 in the impugned order and a finding of fact has been recorded by both the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority holding that the land in question is tenanted land and with reference to the contention of the Petitioner that Section 5 of the Act, there is a prohibition of lease after 1.3.1974 in favour of Respondents 1 and 2, at paragraph-17 of the impugned order, the authority has referred to the judgment of this Court reported in Seena Seregara Vs. Land Tribunal, ILR (1985) KAR 805 wherein this Court has held that the lease of the agricultural land after 1.3.1974 pursuant to Section 5 of the Act is not held to be null and void. Land Tribunal, ILR (1985) KAR 805 wherein this Court has held that the lease of the agricultural land after 1.3.1974 pursuant to Section 5 of the Act is not held to be null and void. Further, with reference to earlier writ proceedings filed by Respondents 1 and 2, the matter was remitted back by this Court vide its order dated 16.11.1983 wherein this Court has referred to the RTC entries found in the year 1973-74 on the basis of oral evidence adduced before the Land Tribunal after the matter was remitted back, the Land Tribunal has recorded a finding that the presumptive value to be attached in respect of entries in the RTC record for the year 1973-74 in respect of land in question in favour of the Petitioner has been rebutted and the finding of the Land Tribunal has been re-affirmed by the appellate authority. Further, at paragraph 18 of the impugned order on consideration of oral evidence on record and after re-appreciation of the same by the appellate authority in exercise of its appellate power and jurisdiction has recorded its findings by assigning legal and valid reasons recorded at paragraphs 20, 21, 23 to 27 of the impugned order. The Appellate Authority has considered the contention of the Petitioner that the land was not leased and further the fact there is no evidence adduced either before the Tribunal or before the appellate authority by the Respondents 1 and 2 is also considered, and answered the said contention against the Petitioner by recording valid and cogent reasons, which findings are justifiable in law. 9. The appellate authority with reference to the contention that the name of Respondents 1 and 2 were not entered in the RTC record and land in question was granted in favour of Petitioner in the year 1972, and that he could not have leased the same to the 1st and 2nd Respondent is also considered at paragraph-28 of the impugned order. Further, at paragraph-30 of the impugned order, a finding of fact has been recorded holding that Petitioner belongs to Mysore, he has applied for grant of land in question in the year 1969. In the year 1972 grant was made in his favour. Further, at paragraph-30 of the impugned order, a finding of fact has been recorded holding that Petitioner belongs to Mysore, he has applied for grant of land in question in the year 1969. In the year 1972 grant was made in his favour. The case sought to be established by the Petitioner that he used to go to the village often and often for the purpose of cultivating the land and he was raising crops and he has also submitted a petition to the Tahsildar with reference to the entries made in the year 1975-76. All these aspects have been taken into consideration and a finding of fact has been recorded at paragraphs 30, 31, 32 and 35 to 37 by assigning valid and cogent reasons, which are based on evidence on record and also in accordance with the provisions of the Act and law. The appellate authority has correctly recorded the findings holding that the relevant entries are made in the name of Respondents 1 and 2 in the RTC records from the year 1975-76 onwards, no document is produced by the Petitioner to show that proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner for rectification of Pahani for change of entries made in the name of the Respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the entries found in the RTC as referred above. 10. In my considered view, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority has elaborately considered all the legal contentions urged by the Petitioner before it, after re-appreciation of evidence on record has recorded the findings of the fact answering all the legal contentions raised in the Appeal after proper appreciation of material evidence on record in exercise of its appellate power and jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act by assigning valid and cogent reasons. Though learned Counsel Mr. Tarakaram for the Petitioner has made submission with reference to the various legal contentions urged in this revision petition, he is unable to show to this Court that the findings recorded either by the Tribunal or the Appellate Authority are erroneous in law or suffer from error in law. I do not see any merit in any one of the grounds to interfere with the impugned orders challenged in this revision petition. I do not see any merit in any one of the grounds to interfere with the impugned orders challenged in this revision petition. On the other hand, in my considered view, both Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority have appreciated the evidence on record and correctly recorded findings with valid, cogent and tenable reasons. In my considered view, it is not a proper and fit case for this Court to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its revisional power under the provisions of the Act. Hence, the Petitioner must fail. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.