( 1 ) THE first respondent herein filed Form. 7 before the Land Tribunal seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of 4-95 acres of the land in Sy. No. 187/1b, which was later renumbered as Sy. No. 187/1a2, of Perady Village in Puttur Taluk. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 17-2-1986 rejected the application. The first respondent challenged the said order in appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 29-4-1989 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and granted occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. ( 2 ) I have perused the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellante Authority. The Land Tribunal rejected the application erroneoulsy on the ground that the Geni Chit and Receipts produced by the first respondent pertains to Sy. No. 187/1b and the same do not pertain to the disputed land. The land Tribunal failed to note that the original survey number of the land had been assigned new number as Sy. No. 187/1a2 by the Revenue Authorities. The Appellate Authority considered this aspect elaborately and passed the order under revision. Thus, the mistake committed by the Land Tribunal is rectified by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the order under revision is legal and valid. ( 3 ) AS is evident from the order of the Land Tribunal, the applicant produced the Mulgeni Chit dated 2-6-1996 and Geni Receipt dated 3-6-1966 in proof of his tenancy. Though the same pertains to old survey number had been subsequently changed by the revenue authorities, the documents produced by the applicant holds good for the new survey number as they pertain to the same land though there is change in survey number. ( 4 ) IN addition to the Geni Chit and Receipts, the Appellate Authority considered the entries In the R. T. C and found that in Column No. 10 it is mentioned as Mooli Right, which means mulgeni right. It was also considered that if really the landladies cultivated the land personally, their name would have been shown in cultivators column or the mode of cultivation would have been shown as own cultivation. That is not so. It was also considered that if really the landladies cultivated the land personally, their name would have been shown in cultivators column or the mode of cultivation would have been shown as own cultivation. That is not so. Considering all these aspects, the Appellate Authority has rightly held that first respondent is the tenant of the land and accordingly granted occupancy rights by setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal which had rejected the application. The order under revision is perfectly legal, valid and justified. No interference is warranted by this court. The revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .