V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in L. R. R. P. No. 5606/88 is the owner (hereinafter referred to as such) of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 131 and 132 of julapalya in Bagepalli Taluk. The petitioners in L. R. R. P. No. 998/89 claimed tenancy rights (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') in those lands by filing application in Form 7 before the Land Tribunal. The land Tribunal after conducting enquiry by its order dated 19. 8. 1987 rejected the applicant holding that he was not the tenant of the lands. Aggrieved by the same the tenant filed appeal before the Land Reform Authority, Chickballapur. The Appellate Authority by the order dated 23. 8. 1988 rejected the appeal. However it has held that the lands were tenanted lands as on 1. 3. 1974 and they used to continue in possession of the Government. Having held so, it has been ordered to dispose of the lands under Section 77 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act. The owner has filed the first Revision petition being aggrieved by the finding that the lands were tenanted and also by the direction issued for the disposal of the lands. The tenant has filed the second Revision Petition being aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal. ( 2 ) SINCE these two Revision Petitions arise out of the same order and the facts and the parties are, both these Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the orders of the Land Tribunal and that of the Appellate authority. The Appellate Authority rightly held that the Land Tribunal had authority to decide only the applications seeking occupancy rights and it has no authority to consider the tenancy rights of persons who have not filed the application. The order of the Appellate authority reveals that in Form 7 filed by the tenant, the survey numbers had not been mentioned but it was mentioned only as "jangamolla Jenu land". It is held that on 17. 2. 1977 the tenant filed an application to reject the Form 7 filed on 16. 1. 75 as he would file a separate application in respect of the lands cultivated by him. Accordingly, the land tribunal rejected the Form 7 filed by the tenant by an order dated 17. 2. It is held that on 17. 2. 1977 the tenant filed an application to reject the Form 7 filed on 16. 1. 75 as he would file a separate application in respect of the lands cultivated by him. Accordingly, the land tribunal rejected the Form 7 filed by the tenant by an order dated 17. 2. 1977 and allowed the tenant to file Form 7. From the order of the Appellate Authority it is clear that the tenant has not filed such application thereafter. Inspite of that, the Land tribunal considered his case and has rejected his application in its order dated 19. 8. 1987 eventhough such application was not in existence for the consideration of the land Tribunal. Therefore, the rejection of the appeal of the tenant by the Appellate Authority was perfectly justified and to that extent the order of the Appellate authority is justified. His L. R. R. P No. 998/89 filed by the tenant is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) AS regard the first Revision Petition filed by the owner, the Appellate Authority has not considered as to whether the lands in question were tenanted or not on the appointed date, if tenanted, who was the tenant and whether his tenancy was lawful or not etc, the land Tribunal found that 2nd respondent Chikka Mehaboob Sab was the tenant. Admittedly he had not filed any application before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights. It was found from the documents that one Dodda Fakruddin was entered. The Appellate authority has not assigned any reasons for holding that lands were tenanted and vested with the Government and for ordering disposal of the same under Section 77 of the Act. Therefore, the finding to that effect and the direction issued for the disposal of the lands cannot be sustained as they are bad in law. To that extent the orders of the Appellate Authority and that of the land Tribunal are liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) IN the light of the discussions made above, I proceed to passt he following order:- a) L. R. R. P. No. 5606/88 filed by the owner is allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority holding that the lands were tenanted and vested in the Government and also the direction issued for the disposal of the same are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Land Tribunal only to examine whether the lands had vested in the Government as 1. 3. 1974 and if so, who was the tenant, whether his tenancy was lawful and how the lands vested in the Government and dispose of the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of the Land Tribunal only to the extent holding that the lands were tenanted is also set aside. b) L. R. R. P. No. 998/89 filed by the tenant stands dismissed. Both the orders of the tend Tribunal and the Appellate Authority rejecting the claim of the tenant for conferment of occupancy rights in the lands in question stands confirmed. ( 6 ) ONCE shall transmit the records to the Land Tribunal at once. MP 100999 order ON "for BEING SPOKEN TO" vggj: 15. 9. 1999in my order dated 3. 9. 1999 at paragraph 5 (a) after setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority, the matter has been remanded back to the Land Tribunal for the purposes indicated therein. Before signing the said order, I found that there is no need to remand the matter to the Land Tribunal for the reasons stated in the said order itself. Hence, the matter was ordered to be listed "for being spoken to" with a view to delete that portion of the order by which the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel on both sides concede that there is no necessity to remand the matter to the Land Tribunal as rights of none of the parties would be affected. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated in the order dated 3. 9. 1999, it is ordered as under:- "in paragraph 5 (a) of the order dated 3. 9. 1999, the sentence commencing from The matter is remitted back to the Land Tribunal' to 'receipt of a copy of this order' shall be omitted. 4. In other words, in the order dated 3. 9. 1999, retaining the last sentence, the portion remitting the matter to the land Tribunal shall be omitted in paragraph 5 (a ). 5. The order dated 3. 9. 1999 shall be read as indicated above. --- *** --- .