M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Advocates for both the contesting parties as also the learned Government Advocate on merits. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge in this case has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the present appellant on the solitary ground that the lands which comprise the two survey numbers which are the subject matter of this appeal are punja lands and that consequently, the provisions of the Act itself would not apply. The reason for this is also because the learned Single Judge has reproduced from the record of the case before the tribunal a small portion of the evidence of the power of Attorney Holder of the appellant who had claimed the tenancy rights and there is an unqualified admission referring to the lands in question as punja lands. The learned Single Judge has not gone into any other aspects of the case holding that the plea of tenancy under the Land Reforms Act would therefore necessarily have to fail. It is this order that is assailed before us. ( 3 ) THE Appellants learned Advocate has vehemently submitted that this is a case which has a very long background and she has drawn our attention to the earlier litigation between the parties preferred in the year 1971 and the findings of the court recorded in those proceedings and she has submitted that there is a very clear finding to he effect that the present respondent/land owner could not have been in possession and that the possession even at that point of time was with the lessee. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Advocates on both sides on all aspects as also the learned Government advocate, but what we need to take note of is that unless and until the present appellant can overcome the one ground on which the learned Single Judge has decided against her, that none of the remaining material could be of much assistance. For example, a lot of effort was put in to demonstrate to us that there are references even in the evidence to the effect that green leaves were being cultivated from portions of these survey numbers and some reference also to the effect that some part of it seems to have been under vegetable cultivation. For example, a lot of effort was put in to demonstrate to us that there are references even in the evidence to the effect that green leaves were being cultivated from portions of these survey numbers and some reference also to the effect that some part of it seems to have been under vegetable cultivation. The alternate submission put forward by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that if the court were to for any reason restrict the claim that alternatively these areas totaling 30 cents must be awarded to the appellant. This is however, without prejudice to the basic contention that the whole of the record and more importantly the statement of the power of attorney Holder which has been held against the appellant cannot be taken in isolation by bringing out that the whole of the material will have to be considered and if this is done, that there is enough evidence on record to sustain the plea of tenancy. ( 5 ) MR. Shetty who represents the respondent/land owner has submitted that the admission which was put forward on behalf of the appellant in fact represents the true state of affairs and it is his submission that irrespective of any orders passed in respect of the other pieces of land that as far as these two small areas are concerned that both the tribunal and the learned Single Judge were perfectly justified in having rejected the claim for occupancy rights. Apart from this, he has demonstrated that the reference made in the earlier proceed- ings has been one sided, that in fact if the record is carefully scrutinized it will be seen that the subsisting lease rights had been surrendered a long time before the Land Reforms Act came into operation. We refrain from going into these aspects because in our considered view it is irrelevant here. On the material before us we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in refusing to interfere with the tribunals order. We refrain from going into these aspects because in our considered view it is irrelevant here. On the material before us we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in refusing to interfere with the tribunals order. ( 6 ) THE Appellants learned Advocate did draw our attention to a number of rulings one of which is 1999 (4) K. L. J. 524, where in the well known principle had been laid down that even in case of punja lands if there is enough material to hold that either they have brought under cultivation or even that they are capable of being brought under cultivation that this would not come in the way of disqualifying a tenant who had applied for the grant of occupancy rights. The submission canvassed here is that there is evidence to indicate that part of the lands were cultivated and secondly that trees are standing on them and that green manure was procured from these lands and that they come within the definition and the frame work. The submission canvassed is that they qualify as agricultural lands. In a given case where there is a serious dispute about the nature of the lands we would have probably entertained this plea but as faras the present record is concerned we find that in the statement or examination in chief itself the power of Attorney Holder who effectively represents the applicant has in no uncertain terms admitted that the whole of the land is punja land irrespective of what has been stated before or after this. This is an unequivocal admission which has not been watered down and in our considered view this statement also totally disqualifies the present appellant. Irrespective of what other material is brought on record it would still not be enough to transcend the legal inference that flows from this admission. Under these circum stances in our considered view this is not a case in which any interference is called for. The appeal accordingly fails on merits and stands dismissed. Interim order if any to stand vacated. --- *** --- .