( 1 ) THESE two petitions could be disposed of by a common order as they raise common questions of law. W. P. No. 2142 is by the holder of the quandom Inam and W. P. No. 2148 is by the alienee from such Insmdar. By these petitions, the petitioners have principally challenged the order made by the Deputy Commissonerr Belgaum in No RB/wta/22i69 dated 31-3-1970 and the one made by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 870 and 1386/ 70 (M. L. R.) the material facts are as follows s. Nos. 294, 295 and 319 are situate in Hulagabali village, formerly in Jamkhandi Taluk and now in Athani Taluk, Belgaum District. The said lands are governed by the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous alienations Abolition Act, 1955 (Bombay Act 22 of 1955 ). When the inams stood abolished by virtue of the said Act, respondents 2 to 4 in W. P, 2148/71 herein applied for regrant of the lands on the ground that they were tenants. Similarly, the petitioners and respondent-1 also applied for grant of occupancy right in the said lands. There is some dispute, however, as to the payment of occupancy price as required by the Statute (Act 22 of 1955), and it is the contention of the respondents 2 to 4 that the petitioner had not paid occupancy price in time. I am not -at present concerned with the question of such non-payment of occupancy price in time it is a matter which has to be examined by the, Authorities when the matlers stand remitted, as I propose to do. ( 2 ) THE Assistant Commissioner to whom such applications were made, granted the lands in favour of respondents 2 to 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners in WP. 2148 (71 alone appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who rejected the appeal as not maintainable. Thereupon, instead of taking the matter in appeal to the Divisinal Commissioner as enjoined by the, Bombay Land Revenue Code, they appealed to the Mysore revenue Appellate Tribunal in the aforementioned appeals. The Tribunal, on a joint submission made on behalf of the appellants themselves, held that such appeals were not maintainable. Hence these petitions. Before me, on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the ppeals were competent and the concession made before the Tribunal was on the basis of a mistake of law. The Tribunal, on a joint submission made on behalf of the appellants themselves, held that such appeals were not maintainable. Hence these petitions. Before me, on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the ppeals were competent and the concession made before the Tribunal was on the basis of a mistake of law. It is therefore now sought to be made out that such appeals were competent. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the contesting respondents, it is contended that in view of the concession made by the petitioner before the Mysore Revenue appellate Tribunal, it was not a matter in which this Court could interfere under art. 227 of the Constitution. Further it is urged that even on the assumption that the Bombay Land Revenue Code was applicable as contended for the petitioner, then also the appeals before the Tribunal would not be maintainable. Lastly, it was contended that haying allowed the order of the Deputy Commissioner to stand as it was without expressly appealing against it, the petitioners in any event would be concluded by that order. There were some other contentions which I shall refer at the appropriate place. ( 4 ) IT is clear from the provisions of S. 5 off the Act 22 of 1955 that the provisions of the Code and Rules relating to non-alienated lands shall apply to such lands. The word 'code' has been defined in the Act as referring to Bombay Land Revenue Code. It is no doubt true that the Bombay land Revenue, Code has been repealed under S. 202, read with the schedule, of the, Mysore, Land Revenue Act. It is also true that the proceedings have been initiated subsequent to the Mysore Land Revenue Act, although it purports to be a, proceeding under the Act 22 of 1955. Similar provision making the Code and the Rules applicable is to be found in the analogous enactment, namely, the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) act, 1950 (Bombay Act 60 of 1960. The said provision occurs in S. 4 (1) of that Act. In a decision of this Court in Sonu Bai v. Yamunabai , 1982 Mys. L. J. 958 the said provision, occurring in the Act 60 of 1950 has been interpreted to mean that the Bombay Land Revenue Code would be applicable even for the purpose of appeals. The said provision occurs in S. 4 (1) of that Act. In a decision of this Court in Sonu Bai v. Yamunabai , 1982 Mys. L. J. 958 the said provision, occurring in the Act 60 of 1950 has been interpreted to mean that the Bombay Land Revenue Code would be applicable even for the purpose of appeals. It seems to me that in the absence of any other statutory provision to the contrary, we must understand the same provision in S. 5 of the Act 22 of 1955 in the same sense. That being so, an appeal would be competent to the authorities mentioned in the Bom. Land Revenue Code from any order passed even under the Act 22 of 1955. But the argument on behalf of the respondents is that the decision of this court in Sonu Bai's case (1) would be clearly inapplicable as the learned judges, there were concerned with a case which arose at a time when the bombay Land Revenue Code had not been repealed, whereas in the instant case,, the proceedings were commenced only after that Code had stood repealed. It seems to me that the initiation of the proceedings subsequent to such repeal would not be of any materiality when one remembers that such initiation is expressly under the Special Act. that is, the Act 22 of 1953. But the question would arise whether even after the repeal of Bombay land Revenue Code aa aforesaid, the provisions of S. 5 of the Act 22 of 1955 providing for the application of that Code and Rules survive for the purpose of the present case In my view, it clearly survives and is applicable. By the repeal under S. 202 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Special Enactment stand modified accordingly. So, long as the proceeding has been Initiated under Special act 22 of 1955, the provisions made thereunder will be applicable and for that purpose, the Code and the Rules must be deemed to be in force. ( 5 ) IN my view, the reference to the 'code' in S. 5 of the Act of 1955, is a piece of Legislation by reference. That being so, any repeal of this 'code' will not have the effect of amending that section in the Special Act. ( 5 ) IN my view, the reference to the 'code' in S. 5 of the Act of 1955, is a piece of Legislation by reference. That being so, any repeal of this 'code' will not have the effect of amending that section in the Special Act. For the purpose of the Special Act the 'code' must be deemed to be part of such Act. Therefore, unless S. 5 itself is amended, the 'code' continues to be in force for the purposes of such a Special Enactment. I do not therefore feel impelled to accept the contention urged on behalf of the respondents. ( 6 ) BUT the question still remains as to the maintainability of the appeal before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. It seems ten me in this regard, that the contention urged on behalf of the respondents is clearly right. Even if the Bombay Land Revenue Code is applicable, the appeals would lie to the higher authorities and ultimately would lie to the mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal under S. 203 of the Bombay Land revenue Code. In the instant case, the petitioners have virtually skipped two of such stages, namely that of the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional commissioner There is no doubt that there was an appeal to the deputy Commissioner, by some of the petitioners. But in taking up the matter to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal directly, that order has not been challenged at all. But what is challenged is that of the Assistant commissioner, the order made initially. The stage of the Divisional Commissioner has also been skipped In these circumstances it follows that an appeal to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal would not lie. But it is seen from the reliefs sought for on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Deputy commissoner also has been challenged in WP. 2148/71. It is however, to be noted that in WP. 2142/71. no such relief has been sought. Moreover, the petitioner in the latter petition had not even appealed to the Deputy commissioner. In the view I have taken that an appeal would not lie to the revenue Appellate Tribunal and the fact that the petitioner in WP. 2142 of 1971 has not appealed, I have no other alternative but to hold that the said Writ Petition would stand dismissed, as in that case, the order of the deputy Commissioner cannot be assailed. In the view I have taken that an appeal would not lie to the revenue Appellate Tribunal and the fact that the petitioner in WP. 2142 of 1971 has not appealed, I have no other alternative but to hold that the said Writ Petition would stand dismissed, as in that case, the order of the deputy Commissioner cannot be assailed. ( 7 ) I now turn to WP. 2148/71. It is well settled that this Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution could mould the reliefs depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the fact that there was an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner which he had erroneously dismissed, I think it proper to allow the petitioners in this petition to prosecute that appeal. It is no doubt true that in the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal the petitioners have challenged only the order of the Assistant Commissioner and have not taken into Account the order of the Deputy Commissioner. I am of the, view that this omission on the part of the petitioners cannot seriously operate as an impediment in the direction I propose to make. In this view of the matter, the order of the Deputy Commissioner referred to earlier, ' cannot be sustained i therefore, set aside the orders. In view of the above discussion, WP. 2142/71 is dismissed, WP. 2148/71, however, stands allowed. The Orders made by the Deputy Commissioner and the Mysore Revenue Appellate tribunal in this behalf are set aside The matter will, however, stand remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, for the disposal of the appeal, detailed earlier, afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made herein. ( 8 ) I however, wish to make it clear that the contention urged on behalf of the contesting respondents in regard to the non-payment of occupancy price in time by the petitioners, is left open for adjudication by the Deputy commissioner. Any other contention of the parties can also be urged. In the circumstances I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .