K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J. ( 1 ) ON 11-12-1991, it was ordered that the civil petition filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1990, be registered as writ petition and summon the records from the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural, Bangalore in case No. Mis. 58 of 1989 along with the records in ALRA. 238 of 1987 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore District, and records in Case No. LRA (A) TC 1/667/74-75 on the file of Land Reforms tribunal, Hoskote Taluk, Hoskote. On receipt of the above said records, it was registered as W. P. No. 25294 of 1993. ( 2 ) THE legal representative of respondent 1 is represented by Sri L. S. Venkatakrishna. In spite of service of notice on respondent 2-owner of the land in question, he is absent. Respondents 3 to 6 are represented by the learned Government Pleader Sri V. Bychappa. ( 3 ) THE case on hand has got a chequered history. The petitioner in the above case is the tenant. Respondent 1 is the purchaser of the land in question from respondent 2 after 1-3-1974. ( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case of the petitioner-tenant may be stated as under. The tenant filed Form 7 before the Land Tribunal, Hoskote, claiming occupancy right in respect of Sy. Nos. 90, 92, 93, 114/2, 134 and 40/2 of thiruvaranga Village. On admission by respondent 2-owner of the above said lands in question, the Land Tribunal by its order dated 7-1-1976, granted occupancy right in favour of the petitioner-tenant, as prayed for. The respondent 1-purchaser of the northern portion of land bearing Sy. Nos. 90, 92 and 93 from respondent 2, who was not a party to the order of the Land Tribunal dated 7-1-1976, challenged it in W. P. No. 3442 of 1977. His contention was that since 13-6-1974 he was owner of the disputed land, but he was not served with individual notice of the enquiry by the Tribunal, into the claim of the present petitioner. This court felt that an enquiry was required in relation to half portion of Sy. Nos. 90, 92 and 93 of Thiruvaranga Village. Thereafter, the Tribunal was directed to hold a fresh enquiry into the claim of the present petitioner. This court felt that an enquiry was required in relation to half portion of Sy. Nos. 90, 92 and 93 of Thiruvaranga Village. Thereafter, the Tribunal was directed to hold a fresh enquiry into the claim of the present petitioner. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal held an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the land purchased by respondent 1 was not tenanted land and thus, by order dated 19-2-1981, rejected the claim to that extent. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant challenged the order in W. P. No. 9971 of 1981. This Court by order dated 15-4-1983, quashed the order of the Land Tribunal dated 19-2-1981, and remitted the case back to the land Tribunal for fresh enquiry. Respondent 1-purchaser challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-4-1983 passed in W. P. No. 9971 of 1981 before Division Bench in W. A. No. 990 of 1983. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal by order dated 9-8-1983, and directed the Tribunal not to take into consideration the statements of the witnesses already recorded on behalf of the parties before the Tribunal and it shall rest its decision only on the fresh evidence to be collected during the course of the fresh enquiry. Therefore, the Land Tribunal recorded statements of the parties on 23-10-1986 and on the very same day, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the tenant, insofar as the portion of the lands purchased by respondent 1. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the Land Tribunal dated 23-10-1986, the tenant filed an appeal under Section 118 (l-A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority at Bangalore, where it was registered as L. R. Appeal No. 1136 of 1986. The tenant has urged the following grounds. THAT the impugned order is not a speaking order. that the Land Tribunal has passed the impugned order contrary to law and directions of High Court. that the Land Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiry. that the Land Tribunal failed to consider the relevant documents and evidence. that the impugned order is opposed to principles of natural justice as it refused to grant reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence. that the Land Tribunal committed an error on 23-10-1986 in holding that there was no need to record the statement of witnesses in spite of specific direction of High Court. that the impugned order is opposed to principles of natural justice as it refused to grant reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence. that the Land Tribunal committed an error on 23-10-1986 in holding that there was no need to record the statement of witnesses in spite of specific direction of High Court. that the order of the Land Tribunal is opposed to Sections 19, 39 and 43 of the Act. that the Tribunal failed to hold that the sale transaction in respect of the land in question is void. that the Land Tribunal failed to hold that respondent 2 had no right to alienate the disputed tenanted lands subsequent to 1-3-1974 and thus, sale had no consequence on the petitioner's tenancy claim. that the Tribunal failed to hold that the portions of the land claimed by respondent 1 is part and parcel of the other portions of the same survey number. that no survey had been made to bifurcate those portions of lands (subject-matter of sale ). that the Land Tribunal erred in not considering the undisputed pahani entries upto 1975 and not giving a finding on the question of possession as on 1-3-1974 and immediately prior to that. that the Land Tribunal erred in not holding that the adding of respondent 1 along with the petitioner in the pahanis subsequent to 1974-75 is in contravention of the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act and they were challenged by the tenant before the Competent Authority. that the Land Tribunal failed to consider the mahazar drawn by the authorities on the disputed entries in the revenue records, which establishes the possession and cultivation of the disputed land by the petitioner. that the Land Tribunal committed procedural irregularities and acted contrary to Sections 44 and 48-A of the Act and Rules 17 and 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. These are the grounds urged by the petitioner-tenant in the appeal filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. ( 5 ) ON the basis of grounds urged by the tenant, the Land Reforms appellate Authority formulated the following two points for its consideration. (I) Whether the appellant was a tenant cultivating the lands in question as on 1-3-1974 and immediately prior to it? (ii) Whether the order of the Land Tribunal needs interference at the hands of this authority? (I) Whether the appellant was a tenant cultivating the lands in question as on 1-3-1974 and immediately prior to it? (ii) Whether the order of the Land Tribunal needs interference at the hands of this authority? ( 6 ) THE learned Judicial Member of the Appellate Authority, for the reasons recorded in his order dated 18-7-1989, answered point No. (i) in the affirmative, consequently, answered point No. (ii) also in the affirmative and held that the petitioner was entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land in question and set aside the order of the Land tribunal, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. But, the Revenue Member of the Appellate Authority disagreed with the findings given by the judicial Member, and wrote a dissenting order for the reasons recorded by her. ( 7 ) DUE to difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and revenue Member of the Appellate Authority, the matter was referred to the Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, under Section 116-B of the Act, to offer his opinion on the points formulated by the Appellate authority. On receipt of the reference, the learned Civil Judge registered it as Miscellaneous Case No. 58 of 1989 on its file. When the case was pending before the learned Civil Judge, the Land Reforms Appellate authority was abolished by way of amendment to the Act. Since there was no specific provision in the amendment Act, as to the reference made under Section 116-B of the principal Act, the learned Civil Judge did not express his opinion on the reference, as it would be practically redundant. Therefore, the records were retransmitted to the office of the land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore, for further proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner filed civil petition under Section 17 of the Act to summon the records from the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and dispose of the same. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued the case in support of the grounds urged, as mentioned above and also cited the following decisions. (I) S. Venkatappa v Narayanappa and Others, on the point that the deemed tenant though attested as a witness to the sale deed, the averments made in the sale deed will have no presumptive value. (I) S. Venkatappa v Narayanappa and Others, on the point that the deemed tenant though attested as a witness to the sale deed, the averments made in the sale deed will have no presumptive value. (ii) Pundaleekappa v The Land Tribunal, Bijapur District, on the point that the person, who purchases the lands, subsequent to the appointed day, cannot question the grant of occupancy rights by the Tribunal prior to the date of purchase. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner-tenant filed Form 7 on 19-12-1974 registered in No. LRF 667/74-75 on the file of Land Tribunal, seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of the lands in Sy. Nos. 90, 92, 93, 114/2, 134 and 40/2. The claim of respondent 1-purchaser is that he has purchased the northern half portion of the land bearing Sy. Nos. 90, 92 and 93 from respondent 2-owner. It is implicit that there is no dispute in respect of the petitioner's tenancy right regarding the southern half portion of Sy. Nos. 90, 92 and 93. The petitioner-tenant has stated before the Land tribunal on oath stating that he had been cultivating the land bearing sy. Nos. 90, 92 and 93 on wara basis since last 18 years and he has paid half crop share to the landowner, respondent 3, but no receipts were issued and the pahani entries stand in his name. He has further deposed that he did not pay wara (crop share) after the respondent 1-purchaser approached this Court. The tenant has deposed before the Land tribunal that he has constructed a house in the land. The above said evidence of the tenant has not been challenged. The evidence of respondent 1-purchaser is that he purchased the northern half share (viz. , 4 acres 2 guntas) of the above said three lands during the year 1974 from respondent 2 and since then, he has been in possession. The above said evidence of the tenant has not been challenged. The evidence of respondent 1-purchaser is that he purchased the northern half share (viz. , 4 acres 2 guntas) of the above said three lands during the year 1974 from respondent 2 and since then, he has been in possession. The respondent 2-original owner of the land in question has stated before the Tribunal that he was the owner of the land in question and he was personally cultivating the northern half portion measuring 4 acres 2 guntas and the petitioner-tenant was cultivating the southern half portion on wara basis and during the year 1974, respondent 2-owner was to pay money to the bank and therefore, asked the petitioner-tenant to purchase the northern portion, but the tenant pleaded his inability and agreed to consent for sale of that portion of the land in favour of others and accordingly he sold that portion of the land in favour of respondent 1-purchaser and the petitioner-tenant also attested the sale deed. Since the Land Tribunal committed an error in holding that there was no need to record the statements of the witnesses, the Appellate Authority permitted the parties to adduce further evidence. ( 10 ) THE petitioner-tenant got himself examined, besides examining two more witnesses. The witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner- tenant have fully supported the case of the petitioner stating that the petitioner-tenant had been cultivating the entire land in the disputed survey numbers by paying crop share to the respondent 2-owner, and the disputed land was not cultivated by any other person. Nothing worthwhile was elicited in the cross-examination of the tenant and his witnesses except tenant's admission that he has attested sale deed. The respondent 2-owner has not cross-examined the petitioner-tenant and his witnesses. In the evidence of petitioner-tenant with regard to the sale deed, he has feigned ignorance in respect of the sale deed executed by respondent 2 in favour of respondent 1. The petitioner-tenant has stated in his evidence that he has challenged the pahani entries for the year 1974-75 entered in the name of respondent 1-purchaser and in that regard, the Revenue Inspector has drawn a mahazar as per Exs. A. 9 and A. 6 and the respondent 1 was never in possession of the lands in question, though alleged to be purchased by him. A. 9 and A. 6 and the respondent 1 was never in possession of the lands in question, though alleged to be purchased by him. It is in the evidence of the petitioner-tenant that he has constructed a house in the land in question and residing there and the respondent 1-purchaser is a contractor residing in Bangalore. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the respondent 1-purchaser, he purchased the disputed land from respondent 2-owner under sale deed dated 13-6-1974, which is attested by the petitioner-tenant. ( 12 ) THE respondent 2-owner herein has stated on oath that he was personally cultivating the portions sold in favour of respondent 1-pur-chaser, and the petitioner was the tenant of the other portion. In his cross-examination by the petitioner, he has given admission that in the first enquiry before the Land Tribunal, he had conceded the claim of the petitioner. Respondent 2 has deposed that he did not know regarding the residence of the petitioner in the disputed land itself. ( 13 ) THE tenant has produced pahani extracts as Exs. A. 1 to A. 3 for the years 1969-70 and 1973-74, wherein, the name of the petitioner is shown in the cultivator column of the land in question. The entry for the year 1973-74 shows as if the entire extent of land in Sy. Nos. 90, 92 and 93 was banjar or uncultivated. Exs. A. 4 to A. 6 for the year 1974-75 onwards show the name of the petitioner-tenant as well as the name of the respondent 1-purchaser as the person cultivating half extent of lands. Admittedly, the petitioner-tenant has challenged pahani entries made in the name of respondent 1-purchaser and in that regard, the revenue Inspector conducted a mahazar as per Ex. A. 9, which discloses that the petitioner was cultivating the disputed lands. The respondents 1 and 2 have not examined any other person in support of their case. The respondent 2-owner has not explained how the entries in the pahani came to be entered in favour of the tenant. The respondent 2-owner has not produced any document to show that he was cultivating the disputed land in question personally as on 1-3-1974 and immediately prior to that. There is no material on record to show that there was any dividing line in between the southern and northern portion of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. The respondent 2-owner has not produced any document to show that he was cultivating the disputed land in question personally as on 1-3-1974 and immediately prior to that. There is no material on record to show that there was any dividing line in between the southern and northern portion of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 90, 92 and 93 so as to presume that there were two portions. On the basis of analysis and evaluation of oral testimony and documents on record, the learned Judicial Member of the Appellate Authority rightly answered the point No. (i) holding that as on 1-3-1974 and immediately prior to that, the petitioner was the tenant in respect of the disputed lands. Therefore, the contention of the respondents viz. , the purchaser and owner of the land in question that the petitioner-tenant himself signed as a witness to the sale deed executed subsequent to 1-3-1974 by respondent 2 in favour of respondent 1, and the alleged Coolie Agreement said to be executed by the tenant in favour of respondent 1 are in futile and they are of no avail to the case of contesting respondents. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner support the case of the petitioner. ( 14 ) IN nutshell, on evaluation of the evidence and material on record, i am of the opinion that the findings of the learned Judicial Member of the Appellate Authority is correct and the order of the Land Tribunal is liable to be quashed. ( 15 ) HENCE, I pass the following order. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23-10-1986 passed in Case No. LRF (A) TJ 1/667/74-75 on the file of the Land Tribunal, is quashed, and granted occupancy right in favour of the petitioner in respect of the entire land bearing Sy. Nos. 90, 92 and 93, all situated in Thiruvaranga Village. No costs. --- *** --- .