ORDER 1. RESPONDENT 1 HAD TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BY FILING AN APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH APPEAL STOOD TRANSFERRED TO THE HIGH COURT AND THE SAME WAS TREATED AS WRIT PETITION BY THE HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND DIRECTED THE LAND TRIBUNAL TO GRANT OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT 1 OVER THE ENTIRE LAND INSTEAD OF A PORTION OF IT. THE LANDLORD AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE FILED WRIT APPEAL BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT AFFIRMED THE ORDER MADE BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AGREEING WITH THE FINDINGS RECORDED. HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY THE LANDLORD. 2. RESPONDENT 1 APPLIED FOR GRANT OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FORM 7 UNDER SECTION 44 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING 4 ACRES 20 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO. 96 OF BELLE VILLAGE. THE TRIBUNAL GRANTED OCCUPANCY RIGHTS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 30 CENTS HOLDING THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY AREA WHICH WAS CULTIVATED BY RESPONDENT 1 AND THAT HE FAILED TO ESTABLISH HIS CULTIVATORY RIGHTS OVER THE REST OF THE LAND. THE LANDLORD DID NOT CHOOSE TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. AS ALREADY NOTICED ABOVE, IT IS RESPONDENT 1 TENANT WHO QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, REJECTING HIS CLAIM FOR OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING AREA OF THE LAND OUT OF 4 ACRES 20 GUNTAS, INASMUCH AS THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS WERE GRANTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 30 CENTS. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN PARA 8 OF HIS JUDGMENT, HAS STATED THUS: "IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE, I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, PARTICULARLY THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS RECORDED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN PARA 8 OF HIS JUDGMENT, HAS STATED THUS: "IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE, I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, PARTICULARLY THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS RECORDED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE POINT OF CLAIM OF OCCUPANCY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT LAND BY THE PETITIONER, THAT THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER WAS LEASED WITH THE SUBJECT LAND ALONG WITH TWO OTHER ITEMS OF LANDS UNDER A QCHALAGENI (SIC) BY THE HUSBAND OF RESPONDENT 2, THAT THE ADMISSION OF THE HUSBAND OF RESPONDENT 2 BY ISSUING A LEGAL NOTICE DATED 27-4-1961 ADMITTING LEASING OF THE SUBJECT LAND TO THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER AND THAT THE PETITIONER AND HIS PREDECESSORS WERE CULTIVATING THE SUBJECT LAND BEING IN POSSESSION THEREOF, HAD NOT AT ALL BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE POWER-OF-ATTORNEY HOLDER OF RESPONDENT 3, IT WAS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ON THE PART OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL TO GRANT OCCUPANCY RIGHT ONLY IN RESPECT OF 30 CENTS OF LAND INSTEAD OF GRANTING THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE SUBJECT LAND, MORE SO, WHEN THE PAHANI ENTRIES ALSO STOOD IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER SHOWING HIM AS A CULTIVATOR OF THE SUBJECT LAND." 3. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED THE ORDER HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT 1 WAS ENTITLED TO GRANT OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF LAND MEASURING 4 ACRES 20 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO. 96. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, DID NOT FIND ANY GOOD GROUND OR VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. 4. THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT LANDLORD CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WAS NOT AT ALL RIGHT IN REAPPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD SO AS TO UPSET THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL; THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, WHILE EXERCISING WRIT JURISDICTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS IF EXERCISING APPELLATE POWERS. HE ALSO POINTED OUT TO CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SAYING THAT RESPONDENT 1 WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE A LAND, CULTIVATING THE SAME AND IT IS A PURE FINDING OF FACT AND EVEN IF THERE IS SOME ERROR, THE SINGLE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE FINDING OF FACT. THIS APPROACH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS WRONG. 5. PER CONTRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS MADE SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR B THE PARTIES. 7. LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT IS RIGHT, SO FAR THE POSITION OF LAW IS CONCERNED THAT THE HIGH COURT, WHILE EXERCISING WRIT JURISDICTION, CANNOT RE-APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE AS IF IT IS THE COURT OF APPEAL, BUT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE HAS NOT ACTED AS THE COURT OF APPEAL. HE HAS CORRECTED THE PATENT ERROR COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 8 EXTRACTED ABOVE. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS MISREAD THE EVIDENCE AND IGNORED MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN INTERFERING WITH SUCH A FINDING OF FACT. THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT, AFTER PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, TAKING AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE MATTER, WAS RIGHT IN NOT INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. 8. HAVING REGARD TO WHAT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN HIS ORDER, IN OUR VIEW, TAKING ALL ASPECTS INTO CONSIDERATION, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER EXERCISING OUR JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION. HENCE, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. NO COSTS.