ORDER The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 29-8-1989 in No. ALRAA 74 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority and also the order dated 5-8-1981 in No. LRM:1813:74-75 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Chintamani, have presented this revision petition. 2. One Sri Dodda Beerappa, deceased father of the second respondent had filed Form 7 in the prescribed form as per the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 on 12-12-1975 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing Sy. No. 342/5 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas and Sy. No. 342/4 measuring 32 guntas, situate at Nakundi Village, Chintamani Taluk, stating that, he is cultivating the said lands as tenant and occupancy rights may be registered in his favour. The said Form 7 filed by the father of the second respondent is available in page No. 12 of the original records. The said Form 7 had come up for consideration before the first respondent-Land Tribunal on 5-8-1981 in Proceeding No. LRM:1813:74-75. The Land Tribunal, after giving a specific finding that, the lands in question have been notified and acquired for formation of regulated market yard and hence, the question of considering his request for grant occupancy rights does not arise and accordingly, rejected the application filed by the second respondent. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent-Land Tribunal on 5-8-1981, the second respondent herein has filed a writ petition before this Court in No. 19872 of 1981. In view of the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the said writ petition has been transferred to the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chikkaballapur and numbered as ALRAA 74/1987. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Authority on 29th July, 1989. The Appellate Authority, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence' available on file, has given a specific finding that, the lands in question are vested in the Government as on 1-3-1974 and the original tenant is entitled for registering the occupancy rights in his favour, after giving cogent reasons in para 11 of the order and registered the occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent by setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Assailing the correctness of the impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Chintamani on 5-8-1981 and the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chikkaballapur, on 29-7-1989, the petitioners felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition. 3. The principal submission canvassed by Sri Gangireddy, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, both the orders passed by the authorities below are contrary to the documentary evidence and no opportunity, as such, has been given to the petitioners to adduce their evidence. Further, he submitted that, the Land Tribunal, Chintamani has rightly rejected the application filed by the father of the 2nd respondent Sri Dodda Beerappa holding that, the said lands have been notified and acquired by APMC and hence the questioning of registering the occupancy rights in favour of the applicant does not arise. But the said observation made by the Land Tribunal is not appreciated by the Appellate Authority and it has proceeded to pass the order holding that, the lands in question are tenanted lands and granted the occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent only on the basis of the entries found in RTC extract. Therefore, he submitted that, both the orders passed by the authorities below are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second respondent, inter alia, contended and substantiated the order passed by the Appellate Authority. He has vehemently submitted that, the Appellate Authority has given a specific finding, after appreciating the evidence in para 11 of its order to the effect that, for the years 1970-71 to 1974-75 in cultivators column i.e., Col. No. 12(2), the name of one Sri Dodda Beerappa has been shown in respect of the lands in question. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners, they have not produced any evidence to rebut the evidence of the second respondent and therefore, the Appellate Authority has rightly granted the occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent. No error or irregularity as such has been committed by the Appellate Authority. Nor the petitioners have made out any good grounds to interfere with the same, at this stage. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for first respondent. 6. No error or irregularity as such has been committed by the Appellate Authority. Nor the petitioners have made out any good grounds to interfere with the same, at this stage. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for first respondent. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusing the original records available on the file of both the authorities, including the orders passed by both the authorities, it is apparent on the face of the orders that, the Appellate Authority has not committed any error, much less irregularity in granting the occupancy rights in favour of the 2nd respondent, after conducting enquiry as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules. It is significant to note that, the petitioner deceased - M. Narasappa has participated in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal on every day of hearing and he has put his signature in the order-sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal, Chintamani on all the dates when he was present. But he has not made any sincere efforts to adduce his evidence, nor he has produced any documentary evidence to show that, he is cultivating the said lands as owner. On the contrary, the second respondent has produced the RTC extract for the agricultural years 1970-71 to 1974-75. The Tribunal, after evaluation of oral evidence of the second respondent and the documentary evidence like entries found in Col. No. 12(2) of the RTC extract, wherein the name of father of the 2nd respondent Sri Dodda Beerappa is shown as cultivating the said lands, has given a specific finding in its order that, as on 1-3-1974, the lands in question are tenanted lands and vested in the Government and late Sri Dodda Beerappa was cultivating the said lands. Inspite of giving such a finding, it has rejected the application on the ground that, the lands have been notified and acquired by the APMC. Against that order, the 2nd respondent herein had filed a writ petition before this Court in No. 19872 of 1981 and during the pendency of the said writ petition, in view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the matter was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chikkaballapur and renumbered as ALRAA 74/1987. Against that order, the 2nd respondent herein had filed a writ petition before this Court in No. 19872 of 1981 and during the pendency of the said writ petition, in view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the matter was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chikkaballapur and renumbered as ALRAA 74/1987. The Land Reforms Appellate Authority, after conducting the enquiry and after appreciating the oral evidence adduced by the second respondent, has discussed the same elaborately in para 4 of its order and after appreciating the oral evidence and the credible documentary evidence like, entries found in RTC for the years 1970-71 to 1974-75 wherein the name of original tenant late Sri Dodda Beerappa is shown in Col. No. 12(2) i.e., cultivators' column and inspite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners, they have not produced any rebuttal evidence, has given a specific finding in para 11 of its order that, the lands in question are tenanted lands as on 1-3-1974 they are vested in the Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and granted the occupancy rights in favour of the second respondent by its order dated 29th July, 1989. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities below that the lands in question are tenanted lands and vested in the Government as on 1-3-1974, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence as referred above, the question of interference by this Court by exercising revisional power does not arise, in view of the well-settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgment. Nor, I find any error or irregularity committed by the authorities below, while passing the orders. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners, they have failed to substantiate their case before the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority. Even before this Court also, they have not produced any iota of documentary evidence to show that, as on 1-3-1974 they are cultivating the said lands personally, except making an oral submission. The oral submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, contrary to the documentary evidence as referred above. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the instant revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.