ORDER The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 9•3•1988 in proceeding No. LRA 220 of 1987 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur ('Appellate Authority' for short) in reversing the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Koppa, dated 13.5.1987 in KLR2111A and 2111B/1974•75 so far as it relates to 28 guntas in Sy. Nos. 62/3 and 62/4, has presented this revision petition. 2. This is a tenant's revision petition. The husband of the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the lands in question and after the death of her husband, she has succeeded to the same. Petitioner is in possession, enjoyment and in cultivation of the same. Accordingly, she has filed Form 7 for registration of occupancy rights before the 2nd respondent. Land Trihunal, Koppa, stating that, she is the tenant in respect of 30 guntas in Sy. No. 62. The said application filed by the petitioner was registered as KLR2111A and 2111B/1974•75. The said application, had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, Koppa on 6th February, 1976 along with the application filed by one Sri Subramanya. The Land Tribunal, by the said order granted occupancy rights in favour of petitioner to the extent of 30 guntas. Against the said order, one Sri Subramanya, rival tenant 3rd respondent herein has filed a writ petition before this Court in Writ Petition No. 13020 of 1977. The said writ petition filed by one Sri Subramanya was allowed by this Court by its order dated 30th January, 1980 and the order passed by Land Tribunal, Kappa, dated 6th February, 1976 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to Land Tribunal, Koppa, for conducting the enquiry afresh and to decide the claim of petitioner and the 4th respondent therein. After the remand, the Land Tribunal, Kappa, took up the matter for reconsideration on 13th May, 1987 and issued the notice to the petitioner and other parties. The Chairman and other members of the Land Tribunal, Kappa have made the spot inspection on 12.3.1987 and drawn the mahazar and sketch. In the mahazar they have recorded that, petitioner was cultivating an extent of 0.21 guntas in Sy. No. 62/3 and 0.07 guntas in Sy. No. 62/4, totally measuring 0.28 guntas and one Sri Subramanya•3rd respondent herein was cultivating the land measuring 1.38 guntas in Sy. No. 62/1 and 13 guntas in Sy. In the mahazar they have recorded that, petitioner was cultivating an extent of 0.21 guntas in Sy. No. 62/3 and 0.07 guntas in Sy. No. 62/4, totally measuring 0.28 guntas and one Sri Subramanya•3rd respondent herein was cultivating the land measuring 1.38 guntas in Sy. No. 62/1 and 13 guntas in Sy. No. 62/2 totally measuring 2 acres 11 guntas and registered the occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner to that extent only. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13th May, 1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Koppa, 3rd respondent herein has filed an appeal on the file of the District Land Refom15 Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur and the same was numbered in LRA No. 220 of 1987. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Authority on 9th March, 1988. The Appellate Authority, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and following the mandatory provisions of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority Rules, has allowed the said appeal on 9th March, 1989, and set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Koppa, insofar as it relates to conferring the occupancy rights in favour of petitioner herein and confirmed the occupancy rights granted in favour of the 3rd respondent, on the sole ground that, there is inconsistency in the evidence given by the petitioner before the Land Tribunal, Koppa earlier and she has failed to produce any lease deed, wara or any other receipts to prove her tenancy, except adducing oral evidence. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9th March, 1988 passed by the Appellate Authority, as stated above, petitioner has presented the instant revision petition on the ground that, the Appellate Authority has not conducted the enquiry in strict compliance of Land Reforms (Appellate Authority) Rules, 1986 and it has proceeded to pass the order contrary to the relevant material available on original record. 3, I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 3 and 4 served and unrepresented. 4. 3, I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 3 and 4 served and unrepresented. 4. After careful perusal of the original records available on file at threadbare, including the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Koppa as well as the Appellate Authority, it emerges on the face of the original record and the orders passed by both authorities that, the Appellate Authority has committed a gross error in passing the impugned order by setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Koppa and rejecting the claim of the petitioner and ordering to register the occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent, without conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of the Land Reforms (Appellate Authority) Rules, 1986 and contrary to the materials available on file. Therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. 5. It is significant to note here itself that, 4th respondent herein has sent a written communication to the Assistant Commissioner, Chickmagalur on 19-1-1984 on his behalf and on behalf of his mother and the same is available at ink page 138 in the original records, wherein he has stated in unequivocal terms after thorough verification from the family members and the villagers that, since several years petitioner-Seethamma was cultivating the said land and she is paying paddy regularly as per Geni existed between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and he came to know the said fact after thorough verification from the family members and villagers, as he has left the village for his studies as he was a student and when he received notice from the Land Tribunal, Koppa for appearing, he has verified the said aspect and it is a fact that petitioner is cultivating the said land and she is in possession of the same. He and his mother Smt. Lakshmanuna have no objection for registering the occupancy rights in her favour and any decision taken by the Land Tribunal, Koppa is acceptable to them Further, it is stated that, as per records the name of deceased one Sri Subramanya and petitioner are found and they are receiving geni from both of them and the Competent Authority may take necessary decision in accordance with law. The said representation is given to the Assistant Commissioner, Chickmagalur who is none other than the Chairman of the Land Tribunal, Koppa. Further it reveals from the original records that, one Smt. Lakshmamma, who is none other than the mother of the 4th respondent has also given a separate representation on 17-11-1982 on her behalf and on behalf of 4th respondent and the same is available in ink page No. 135 of the original record, stating that, in Sy. No. 62, 2 acres was cultivating by one Sri Subramanya and 30 guntas was cultivating by the petitioner and they are enjoying the said properties respectively, for 40 years and paying necessary geni first by the husband of the petitioner and thereafter by the petitioner as she was cultivating the said land. 6. The petitioner to sustainable her claim to the extent of 30 guntas as per declaration filed by her has examined the adjacent landowner one Sri Vijeyendragowda on 13-8-1984, who has stated that one Sri Subramanya is cultivating 2 acres and petitioner is cultivating 30 guntas since 20 years and he has seen the same and when the land has been measured, he was present there and at the time of measuring the land there was no dispute at all and thereafter dispute started between one Sri Subramanya represented by his son and the petitioner. In the cross-examination also he has stated unequivocally that, 30 guntas of land was cultivated by Smt. Seethamma. The copy of the evidence of one Sri Vijeyendragowda is available in page No. 134 in the file of the Land Tribunal, Koppa. One Sri. M.V Panduranga has also stated to the effect that, Smt. Seethamma was cultivating the said land to the extent of 30 guntas. The Appellate Authority, in fact has referred the written representation/submission forwarded by the 4th respondent in para 7 of its order, but, it has failed to refer the similar written representation/submission sent by one Smt. Lakshmamma, mother of the 4th respondent on her behalf and on behalf of 4th respondent. The Chairman of the Land Tribunal and other members have made the spot inspection, measured the lands through surveyor and prepared the sketch notifying the extent of lands cultivated by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The Chairman of the Land Tribunal and other members have made the spot inspection, measured the lands through surveyor and prepared the sketch notifying the extent of lands cultivated by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Further, it is stated that they are cultivating the said land to the respective extent i.e., 3rd respondent to the extent of 2 acres 11 guntas in Sy. Nos. 62/1 and 62/2 and petitioner is cultivating an extent of 0.21 guntas in Sy. No. 62/3 and 0.7 guntas in Sy. No. 62/4 totally measuring 28 guntas. The said report and the sketch were not appreciated or considered by the Appellate Authority, except making a stray reference in its order and he has given much about the inconsistency of the statement made by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and she has not produced any lease deed, RTC extract to show that she is cultivating the said land as tenant. The said reasoning the finding given by the Appellate Authority is contrary to the relevant materials available on record as referred above. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has committed a gross error and material irregularity in passing the order. The Land Tribunal, Koppa, after conducting enquiry as envisaged under Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules, 1974, after making spot inspection, after directing the concerned surveyor to make survey of the land, after preparing sketch showing the extent of lands cultivated and held by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent as referred above in detail in the preceding paragraphs and after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, has passed a well-considered order. The said order is supported by the written submissions made by the 4th respondent and his mother which are very much available in the original records as referred above. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, at no stretch, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is sustainable and it is liable to be modified to the extent of setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner to the extent of 28 guntas in Sy. Nos. 62/3 and 62/4 of Kulur Village and registering the occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent to the extent of28 guntas is liable to be set aside. 7. Nos. 62/3 and 62/4 of Kulur Village and registering the occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent to the extent of28 guntas is liable to be set aside. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur cannot be sustained and it is liable to be modified. 8. Accordingly, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order passed by the Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur, dated 9th March, 1988 in LRA No. 220 of 1987, so far as it relates to setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Kappa, dated 13-5-1987 in proceeding No. KLR 2111A and 2111B /74-75 granting occupancy rights in favour of petitioner to the extent of 28 guntas in Sy. Nos. 62/3 and 62/4 situate at Kulur Village only. The order passed by the Land Tribunal, Kappa conferring the occupancy rights in favour of 3rd respondent to the extent of 2 acres 11 guntas in Sy. Nos. 62/1 and 62/2 situate at Kulur Village is undisturbed. With these modifications,