B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS Land Reforms Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Mandya District, Mandya, dated 20-1-1990 passed in Appeal No. 61 of 1988 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Land Tribunal, Mandya, dated 6-1-1988 in LRF INA 64 of 1983-84. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No. 850 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas and Survey No. 839 measuring 25' x 25'. The appellant 2 claimed the tenancy under this petitioner. The Land Tribunal, mandya, after holding an enquiry rejected the prayer of the petitioner and another. Being aggrieved by the order of the Land tribunal, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate authority. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Now the petitioner who was appellant 1 has filed this petition for not granting the occupancy rights in respect of Survey No. 850 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas. ( 3 ) AT the very outset it should be made clear that it is a non-agricultural land. Mr. P. S. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner has no second thought over it. According to him section 6 of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as the 'act') has to be made applicable. When the petitioner has applied for grant of the occupancy rights, the Land Tribunal ought to have granted occupancy rights although it is a non-agricultural land in view of section 6 of the Act. On the other hand Mr. R. K. Hatti, learned government Pleader strenuously submitted that there is concurrent finding and as such, the impugned order does not require interference. He also vehemently contended that since it is a non-agricultural land, the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights. In view of these contentions, now it is to be seen whether the land Tribunal can grant the occupancy right in case of non-agricultural lands, when the application is made for grant of occupancy right of the lands coming under the Act. Section 6 of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams abolition Act, 1955, reads as follows : 6. Other tenants to be tenants under Government. Section 6 of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams abolition Act, 1955, reads as follows : 6. Other tenants to be tenants under Government. Every tenant of the inamdar other than a kadim tenant or a permanent tenant with effect on and from the date of vesting and subject to the provision of Chapter IV, be entitled to be continued as tenant under the Government in respect of the land in which he was a tenant under the inamdar immediately before the date of vesting. According to Mr. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the land is not defined under this Act. As such, for the definition of the land, the Land Revenue Code has to be looked into. According to this Code, in Section 3 (3) the land is defined as follows : "land" includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth, and also shares in, or charges on, the revenue or rent of villages, or other defined portions of territory ; ( 4 ) THIS definition does not come to the rescue of Sri P. S. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner out and out. According to him, the land means and includes agricultural and non-agricultural land. He also relied upon a decision in the case of Dyna Foods Private Limited v Fakirappa and Others , wherein it is held as follows : (B) Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 section 2 (14) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 definition of 'land' not defined by the Act 'land' as defined under Section 2 (14) of Karnataka Land Reforms act does not make any discrimination between agricultural and non-agricultural lands and is all pervasive Securing conversion under Karnataka Land Reforms Act or exemption from ceiling under Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act will not change original character of re-granted land Provisions of one statute ought not to be used to defeat legislative mandate of another statute. While delivering this judgment, his Lordship has observed that Section 2 (14) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 does not make any discrimination between the agricultural and non-agricultural lands and is all pervasive. Relying upon this portion, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same definition should be extended or imparted to the definition of land under Act, 1955. Relying upon this portion, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same definition should be extended or imparted to the definition of land under Act, 1955. In the body of the judgment, his Lordship has also observed as follows :"it is a well-settled principal of law that the provision of one statute ought not to be permitted to be used for the purpose of defeating the legislative mandate of another statute". In my opinion the opinion expressed by his Lordship is only confined to that case. It is not necessary to deal with it in detail as this case does not have direct bearing. ( 5 ) IT is pertinent to note that it is well established principle and in a catena of decisions, it is held that the jurisdiction of the land Tribunal is only to grant or reject the occupancy rights in respect of agricultural land. This is well supported by definition in Section 2 (A) (18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Mr. P. S. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner tried his best to defend and vehemently submitted that in view of the decision in Dyna Foods Private Limited's case, supra, the land includes non-agricultural land. However, his interpretation does not appeal to my mind in view of the powers and functions of the land Tribunal. I have perused the orders of both Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority. Both the forums have come to the conclusion that in case of non-agricultural land, the occupancy rights cannot be granted. At one stage I was inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, but looking to the powers and functions I am not inclined to make exception and hold that the Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to grant the occupancy rights in case of non-agricultural land. ( 6 ) MR. Hatti, learned Government Pleader also relied upon the decisions in the case of C. V. Gouramma v The Land tribunal, Bantwal and Others , and in case of Chowrimuthu v m. S. Kaveramma and Others, wherein it is held as follows :"karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Section 121-A concurrent findings recorded based on evidence on record no interference. Hatti, learned Government Pleader also relied upon the decisions in the case of C. V. Gouramma v The Land tribunal, Bantwal and Others , and in case of Chowrimuthu v m. S. Kaveramma and Others, wherein it is held as follows :"karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, Section 121-A concurrent findings recorded based on evidence on record no interference. Held: Both the Land Tribunal and the Appellate authority, on evidence recorded respectively before them, have recorded a finding that petitioner was not cultivating the lands on the relevant date having regard to the inconsistency in the oral evidence led by him. In such cases, the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction should not interfere unless the conclusions of the authorities below have been based on conjectures and not evidence". ( 7 ) IN view of this also, the orders passed by the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority does not require interference. The appellate Authority has given proper opportunity to the petitioner. Merely the other appellant has not preferred any petition, it does not mean that this petition should be automatically thrown out. Whatever the merits it has, have been considered. It is to be stated that Mr. Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioner tried his best to make out a case that even in case of non-agricultural land, the Tribunal has got the jurisdiction. For the reasons stated above, I reject his contention. Hence the following order. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. --- *** --- .