JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.--We have heard the learned Advocates representing the contesting parties as also the learned Government Advocate on merits. This appeal is confined to only one Survey Number 226/5, situated at Chikkankod village, Honnavar taluk, U.K. District. The Appellant had claimed occupancy rights in respect of this land along with 34 other lands. The Appellant was successful in respect of the remaining ones, but as far as this piece of land is concerned, the claim put forward both by the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 was rejected by the Tribunal. Between the two of them, Respondent-3 left the case to rest at that, whereas the present Appellant contended that the Tribunal was wrong in having rejected his claim and therefore, carried the case to the High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition as is evident from the order passed by him, has very carefully applied his mind to all aspects of the grievance as projected by the present Appellant. As an indication, he specifically referred to the submissions canvassed by the Appellant's learned Advocate before us, viz., that the case qualified for remand because the Tribunal has not referred to the evidence of the two witnesses and has also not gone into any consideration as for as the production of two rent receipts are concerned. The learned Single Judge has followed the right procedure by examining this head of evidence and in our considered view, it is very necessary that in all this class of cases, the High Court adopts the formula which the learned Single Judge has resorted to in the present case. In thousands of these land reforms cases, where the submission is, that the Tribunal has overlooked or not referred to the particular heads of evidence, the High Court has been mechanically remanding the cases to the Tribunal for a re-decision of the cases on the ground that the material in question must be taken into consideration. What is totally overlooked is the fact that it is necessary for the High Court to do a prima facie evaluation for purposes of ascertaining as to whether the evidence in question or the heads of evidence or what we need to define as material, important and crucial heads of evidence, would swing the decision in favour of the aggrieved parties. In other words, the test is as to whether had that evidence been taken into consideration and had it been used in favour of the aggrieved party, whether it would have resulted in conferment of occupancy rights. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, undoubtedly, it is a case where justice has been denied to the aggrieved party or where the case has gone by default and most certainly a remand would be justified because the order of the Tribunal could never be upheld. 2. There is a large number of opposite category of cases where undoubtedly reference has been made to all sorts of heads of evidence and it is possible that the Tribunal was conscious of this material but has not specifically referred to it in the order or we will take the best possibility in favour of the aggrieved Petitioner, wherein the Tribunal has overlooked this material. If the High Court on an examination of the material in question or the evidence in question finds that it is either weak, inconclusive or that even if this material were taken into consideration it would not alter the result or in other words, that this material is not good enough for the authority to come to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to the grant of occupancy rights on the basis of that material, then, a remand is not only academic but it is contra indicated and should not be resorted to. It is quite clear that no useful purpose whatsoever would be served by a remand; on the other hand, it burdens the opposite party, burdens the system and it only elongates the litigation and adds to mountaining the arrears and burden on the Courts and the various forums. 3. Having stated the aforesaid, we specifically deal with the grievance made by the Appellant's learned Counsel which is to the effect that the Tribunal has totally by-passed the evidence of the two witnesses produced by him. The learned Single Judge has very rightly looked at this evidence and he has referred to it in his order. These witnesses had been produced by the Appellant in support of his plea that this area of approximately 8 guntas of land is being cultivated by him. The learned Single Judge has very rightly looked at this evidence and he has referred to it in his order. These witnesses had been produced by the Appellant in support of his plea that this area of approximately 8 guntas of land is being cultivated by him. One of these witnesses deposed to the effect that approximately 4 to 5 months earlier and the second witness has stated approximately one year earlier, the Appellant was seen in the land and that he was seen climbing the coconut trees. The Appellant's learned Advocate submitted that this material would very clearly support the claim of the Appellant because unless he is cultivating the lands, he would not have been seen regularly climbing these coconut trees. We prefer not to say anything beyond pointing out that this evidence is weak and inconclusive and that it can never be used as the base for conferring occupancy rights. Again, the other very strong grievance is to the effect that the two documents which purport to be the rent receipts, one of the year 1964 and the other one issued in October, 1974 make some reference to the collection of rent etc., in respect of this piece of land. We take note of the fact that these receipts are issued by Respondent-3 and we are not very happy with the situation for the simple reason that though the Appellant's learned Advocate stated that Respondent-3 was none other than the trustee of the temple, we find that Respondent-3 has himself filed Form No. 7 in respect of this very land claiming occupancy rights and in this background, the documents issued by him cannot under any circumstances inspire very much confidence. The more important aspect of the case, such as the fact that the revenue records do not support the claim of the present Appellant is an aspect of the case which again is insurmountable as far as his claim for grant of occupancy rights is concerned. We are conscious of the fact that the Appellant has been contending that for a very long period of time he has been in physical possession of the lands and cultivating the same, but in our considered view, such word of mouth evidence cannot in the background of the situation that prevails in the land reforms cases, be safely used for the purpose of conferment of occupancy rights. 4. 4. We have reconsidered the legal position and we have also done a review of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge and after doing so, in our considered view, this is not a case which calls for any interference. It is true that the Appellant's learned Advocate advanced many submissions including the fact that the Appellant is a simple villager and that he also had his limitations when the proceeding was heard and further more, that he should be given a further opportunity but we take note of the fact that the record very clearly indicates that as far as the majority of the claims put forward by the Appellant, that the Tribunal has granted the same and that order has become final. We refer to this aspect only in order to reassure ourselves that no injustice of any type has been done to the present Appellant. 5. In the result, the appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order granted, if any, to stand vacated.