JACANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was stated to have been unauthorisedly cultivating the deserted goathana area of Ballur Village to the extent of 4 acres for a period of two years from 1966-67. The Tahsildar initiated proceedings in exercise of his powers delegated to him under S. 94 of the Land Revenue act, 1964 for levying penalty. He made an order levying a fine of Rs. 2000 per year at the rate of Rs. 500 per acre. Against the said order, the petitioner appealed before the Assistant Commissioner, Savanur, who said that the appeal does not lie before him but lies before the Mysore Revenue appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, accordingly, appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the order impugned in this writ petition, has held that s. 94 (2) of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, is a bar to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal. ( 2 ) THE sole question for consideration is whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Tribunal was barred by sub-sec. (2) of S. 94 of the Act. The said sub-section provides:" The decision of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-sec. (1) as to the amount of assessment and fine payable for the unauthorised occupation of the land shall be final, and in determining this amount, occupation for a portion of a year shall be counted as for a whole year. "the said sub-section states that the amount of assessment and fine payable for the unauthorised occupation of any land shall be final. It does not provide that in all cases falling under sub-sec. (1) of S. 94, orders made therender would be final. There may be cases where persons dispute the encroachment complained of. There may be other cases where trespassers dispute only their liability to pay fine 01 the rate of fine proposed to be levied. It is only in the latter cases when an order is made as to the amount of fine payable by a trespasser, that sub-sec (2) of S. 94 operates to make the said Order final. But if a case involves a disputed question of encroachment the alleged unauthorised occupant cannot be deprived of his right of appeal. It is only in the latter cases when an order is made as to the amount of fine payable by a trespasser, that sub-sec (2) of S. 94 operates to make the said Order final. But if a case involves a disputed question of encroachment the alleged unauthorised occupant cannot be deprived of his right of appeal. ( 3 ) WE have perused the appeal memo and also the other records and we are satisfied that the question before the Tribunal was not the question regarding only the amount of compensation and fine payable by the petitioner. He also disputes his encroachement. In that view, the appeal preferred before the Tribunal was maintainable and it will have to be heard on merits. ( 4 ) IN the result, we allow the petition, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal with a direction that it should restore the appeal of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. No costs. --- *** --- .