Dalveer Bhandari, J - (1.) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment and Order dated, 4th June, 1998 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in LRRP No. 1960 of 1989, whereby the High Court had allowed the Petition filed by the Landlords/Respondents, under Section 121A of the Karnataka Land Reform Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") setting aside the Orders passed by the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Sirsi and the Land Tribunal, Halyala.
(2.) THE Tenant/Appellant in this appeal, claiming to be the tenant of Block No. 20 measuring 11 acres and 17 guntas of Kumbarkoppa Village in Haliyal Taluk (hereinafter, referred to as "land in question"), filed an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Halyala claiming occupancy rights under the Act. In his application, it was alleged that he was cultivating the land in question for many years and was paying rent on crop share basis. It was further alleged by the tenant/Appellant that since the Landlords/Respondents never stayed in the Kumbarkoppa Village, the question of cultivating the land in question by them would not arise at all. Accordingly, the Appellant prayed for an Order of occupancy right in respect of the land in question on the aforesaid allegations. The Landlords/Respondents denied the material allegations made in the application filed by the Tenant/Appellant, inter alia, alleging that the land in question was never leased to anybody and was cultivated through coolies, even the Revenue records from the year 1956 onwards showed the names of the landlords themselves and the mode of cultivation as No. 2, i.e. through hired labourers. Accordingly, Landlords/Respondents prayed for rejection of the application filed by the Appellant claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. By an Order dated, 6th December, 1998, the Land Tribunal, Halyala allowed the application of the tenant/Appellant holding that it was the Appellant who continued to cultivate the land in question and, therefore, entitled to claim occupancy rights.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the Landlords/Respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Sirsa which dismissed the appeal of the Landlords/Respondents and confirmed the grant of occupancy rights relating to the land in question in favour of the tenant/Appellant, inter alia, holding that: 1. The Landlords/Respondents could not prove by cogent and sufficient evidence that they were in cultivation of the land in question; 2. The presumption of the entry in the record of rights stood rebutted by the oral evidence of the tenant/Appellant; 3. The admission of the Landlords/Respondents that they were not staying in the Kumbarkoppa village would itself be sufficient to grant occupancy rights in favour of the Appellant. Aggrieved by the Order of the Appellate Authority, the Landlords/Respondents filed a revision petition under Section 121A of the Act which came to be registered as No. 1960 of 1989 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court, by the impugned Judgment, had set aside the concurrent findings of fact of the Tribunals below and thereby allowed the application by the landlords/Respondents under Section 121A of the Act and rejected the application of tenant/Appellant for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. It was, inter alia, held in the impugned Order that the tenant/Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption of entries in the record of rights by adducing reliable evidence and therefore, had failed to prove their tenancy relating to the land in question.;