CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS order is directed against the order dated 24-6-1988 made by the Land reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur In lrm 266/1988. The petitioner tiled the said appeal inter alia contending that the order dated 18-6-1988 passed by the land Tribunal, Muddebihal dropping them from the proceedings in regard to the conferment of occupancy rights for Survey no. 191 measuring 26 acres 3 guntas in basarkod village of Muddebihal Taluk, was opposed to law and was liable to be set aside with a proper direction to consider zerox copy of the application filed by them in Form No. 7 under the karnataka Land Reforms Act as the original filed earlier before the same Land Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE Appellate Authority, by its order under Revision, dismissed the appeal giving the reasons as follows : -"from the available materials it is seen that another Form No. 7 filed in respect of land in dispute is still pending before the Land Tribunal, Muddebihal and as such the proceedings pending before the Land Tribunal, cannot be said to have been concluded. From the available materials it is seen that it is apprehension of the appellants that land Tribunal is going to pass orders against them and for such apprehensions, even though they are genuine, no provision is made under the Act. The only remedy open to the appellants is to agitate their grievances before the very Land Tribunal and to come in appeal after a final decision is given on the Form No. 7 filed by Appellant No. 1 and others". ( 3 ) IT is apparent from the undisputed facts of the case that the order dated 18-6-1988 had concluded the case as against the appellants-Revision Petitioners The Land Tribunal refused to treat the Revision Petitioners' zerox copy as an application presented to the Land Tribunal in Form No. 7 as the original could not be traced in the records as reported by the tahsildar. Therefore, the reasoning of the appellate authority is totally extraneous to the matter that was in issue What the Land Tribunal had done on 30-5-88 was to receive the zerox copy of Form no. Therefore, the reasoning of the appellate authority is totally extraneous to the matter that was in issue What the Land Tribunal had done on 30-5-88 was to receive the zerox copy of Form no. 7 and direct Tahsildar to search out the original and place it before the tribunal Therefore, the appellate authority should have directed itself to the question whether the zerox copy which purported to be a zerox copy of a certified copy duly certified by the Tahsildar concerned, constituted admissible secondary evidence and not proceed to dispose of the appeal before them on the ground that the other rival tenants application is still pending and therefore, the appellants before them, i. e. , the Revision - Petitioners should go back to the Tribunal and agitate. That is very strange. The very order complained against was that the tribunal dropped them from the proceedings. Therefore, there is a total misdirection by the appellate-authority with reference to the material placed before it. Such an order must be set aside and the appellate authority must be directed to examine the appeal filed by the petitioner which has been rejected by them on the following questions :- (1) Whether the order of 18-6-1988 allowed the Appellants-Revision Petitioners any scope for continuing the proceedings before the Land Tribunal?. (2) Whether the Land Tribunal was correct in dropping the Revision-Petitioners from the proceedings pending before it on the ground that the original was not traced ?. (3) Whether the zerox copy of the certified copy of Form No. 7 does not evidence the presentation of application originally to the concerned Land tribunal ?. ( 4 ) SO far as this Court is concerned, once a document is certified to be a true copy of the original, it pre-supposes original having been filed with that authority. If that authority has lost the original, it cannot be said that the certified copy or a zerox copy of it, is not tenable as evidence of making an application. Subject to the above observation, this Revision Petition is allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate authority to decide the case afresh in the light of directions given. --- *** --- .