( 1 ) THESE two, writ petitions are by rival tenants. The petitioner in Writ Petition 2784 of 1976, is challenging the finding passed in the course of the order dated 29-11-75 by the Karnataka revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, affecting his interest in the tenancy. In, Writ Petition no. 10080 of 1976 the petitioner, who. Is the rival tenant has challenged the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 19-10-1976 on the round of denial of opportunity to the petitioner. ( 2 ) IN the former writ petition the question that arises for decision is what is the legal effect of the observation made by the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal in the course of the order passed by it. In the latter writ petition the question for decision whether there is really denial of opportunity to the petitioner. ( 3 ) IN the former writ petition the petitioner who was deprived of the possession Of certain lands approached the Mamlatdar fog restoration of possession. Mamlatdar passed an order in favour of the petitioner, on 31-3-1961 and the same was affirmed by the Assistant Comimissioner on 21-12-1961. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Asstt Commissioner, the 2nd respondent since deceased, represented by his L. Rs. filed an appeal before the Karnataka Revenue Appellate tribunal in RAB-118-62 (BTALA) The Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the order passed by the Mamlatdar and affirmed by the Assistant commissioner as its jurisdiction had been taken away by Section 91 of the Karnataka Land reform (Amendment) Act, 1973 (Act I of 1974) Having come to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal should have left the matter at that. But while doing so it observed as follows: "therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal against a decision whether a person is a tenant or not. In view of the fact that the provisions of the amended act deemed to have come into force from the date the principal Act came into force, the order passed by the tahsildar and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner should be deemed to be one without jurisdiction. The right of appeal to this Tribunal is taken away by the provisions of sub-section (1) of S. 91. Therefore we have no jurisdiction to hear the revision in question. The right of appeal to this Tribunal is taken away by the provisions of sub-section (1) of S. 91. Therefore we have no jurisdiction to hear the revision in question. In other words, the right of appeal or revision under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act is taken away by the specific provisions of sub-section (1)'of S. 91". The observation excerpted above is unwarranted in the, circumstances of the case. This observation has been made by the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal, which had no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal filed before it. Therefore, suffice it to say that the observation made by the Tribunal with reference to the orders passed by the Tahsildar and confirmed -by he assistant Commissioner is a nullity and it does not exist in the eye of -law with these observations W. P. 2784 of 1976 is disposed of. ( 4 ) NOW turning to the grievances of the petitioner in W. P. 10080/76, the main contention of Mr. Savanur, is that the petitioner was not examined by the Land Tribunal and he was denied of. the opportunity of making representation. There is no substance in this contention. Mr. Goulay, learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant has produced a certified copy of the statement of the petitioner herein, recorded by the Land Tribunal, and it shows that the Land Tribunal has recorded his statement and whatever the petitioner wanted -to state before the Land Tribunal has been recorded. Therefore, the grievance that he was not examined by the Land Tribunal and his statement had not been recorded is without basis or foundation. ( 5 ) MR. Savanur, nextly contended that the impugned order is not a speaking order. This contention is devoid of substance. A Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Land 'tribunal has concisely considered the relevant points necessary for the just decision of the case. Mr. Savanur, took objection that the Land Tribunal is in error in observing that the High Court in the writ petition filed before it quashed the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal and restored the orders of the Tahsildar as confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. He urged that this was not the true position in the order passed by the High Court. He urged that this was not the true position in the order passed by the High Court. In the next para of its order the tribunal quotes the observation actually made by the High Court while disposing of the Writ petition No. 4169 of 1968 and thus the Tribunal had before its mind the observation of the High court, that it was - made clear that it was open to the parties to raise before the appropriate forum, the contentions based on the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as existed before the amendment of the Act. Thus it was open for both the parties to raise all the contentions available under the law before the Land Tribunal. Therefore, it is not correct to contend that the impugned order is not a speaking order. The Land Tribunal solely relied upon the decision rendered by the Mamlatdar and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the tenancy of 2nd respondent in W. P. 10080/76. The Land Tribunal is justified in doing so. Since those orders passed by the Mamlatdar and Assistant Commissioner under the powers vested in them by the provisions of the B. T. A. L. Act and which orders remained unchallenged before the authority having competent jurisdiction, there was nothing further left -to make any enquiry whatsoever. However, the Land Tribunal has recorded the statement of the parties and has given opportunity to both parties to make representations and give statement before it.-In these circumstances, there is no procedural irregularity committed by the Land tribunal. There is no other contention raised and argued before me by Mr. Savanur. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 10080 of 1976 does not call for interference. Writ petition fails. Rule discharged. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.