Judgment B. Padmaraj, Actg. C., J.—Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant case papers including the impugned order made by the learned single Judge as well as the order made by the Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-T. 2. The appellant claiming to be a tenant in occupation of the land in Survey No. 94/IP measuring 60 cents of Nettinige Mudnooru of Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, filed Form No. 7A before the competent authority, after the introduction of S. 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, on the ground that he had failed to apply in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal. The said application of the appellant in Form No. 7A has been dismissed by the competent authority and confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-T. Aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition in Writ Petition No. 16672/2004 and the learned single Judge by an impugned order dated 30-5-2005 has dismissed the writ petition holding that the order of the Appellate Tribunal that the appellant, who had earlier filed an application in Form No. 7, which has become final and conclusive, cannot maintain the present application in Form No. 7A, warrants no interference in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench decision of this Court. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the interpretation placed by the learned single Judge to S. 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is not correct and that the said S. 77-A of the Act do not place any such restriction in respect of preferring an application by an applicant for the new survey numbers, which was not claimed in Form No. 7 filed earlier before the Land Tribunal. He contended that the very purpose of enacting S. 77-A is to enable the tenants, who had due to want of knowledge failed to describe the survey numbers and have failed to include the survey numbers due to technical defects in the Form No. 7 and to enable them to claim the same by filing Form No. 7A. He contended that the very purpose of enacting S. 77-A is to enable the tenants, who had due to want of knowledge failed to describe the survey numbers and have failed to include the survey numbers due to technical defects in the Form No. 7 and to enable them to claim the same by filing Form No. 7A. He further contended that the learned single Judge has held that if an application is maintained in Form No. 7, though he had not claimed certain survey numbers due to bona fide errors, such an applicant cannot maintain Form No. 7A at all, which view of the learned single Judge is clearly opposed to the language of S. 77-A. He, therefore, contended that the order under appeal warrants interference. 4. The contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant though appears to be attractive at the first blush, but the further probe into the matter would show the hollowness of such contention. In fact, the very same question was considered in detail by the Appellate Tribunal and found that the appellant had earlier filed an application in respect of the land in question also and the same has become final and conclusive. The relevant observations made by the Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order at Annexure-T reads as under : 10. The above order of the Land Tribunal is based upon the sketches prepared by the Surveyor and other Revenue Records. From all these documents and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the description of the land at Serial No. 4 given by the present appellant in his Form No. 7 is, of the land in question in this appeal. The land in question was though granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of the present appellant, it was set aside by the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Puttur vide its order dated 30-3-1988 in LRAA/155/1986 when it was challenged by the present respondent 4. The said order of the appellate authority was confirmed by the Honble High Court of Karnataka and the Honble Supreme Court of India (the copies of the said orders are produced by the respondent 4 at page Nos. 21 to 69 of the records submitted by him on 10-4-2003). The said order of the appellate authority was confirmed by the Honble High Court of Karnataka and the Honble Supreme Court of India (the copies of the said orders are produced by the respondent 4 at page Nos. 21 to 69 of the records submitted by him on 10-4-2003). From all these it is evident that the present appellant has filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal claiming grant of the occupancy rights in respect of the land in question and it was finally settled. Section 77-A of the Act is inserted by Amended Act No. 23/1998, only to give benefit to the persons those who have failed to apply for registration of the occupancy rights under S. 48-A of the Act. The present appellant had already availed the opportunity of the benefit of S. 48-A of the Act by filing Form No. 7 for the land in question; now he is not at all eligible to file Form No. 7A under S. 77-A of the Act. In view of all these, the respondent 1 has rightly rejected said Form No. 7A filed by the present appellant and there are no grounds to interfere in the order under appeal. No fruitful purpose is going to be served even if the appeal is admitted. 5. The said finding was recorded by the Appellate Tribunal, on examining the specific question, whether the appellant had filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal earlier claiming the land in question. This is a factual finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of the relevant material on record. It is thus clear from the factual finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that the appellant did in fact filed an application in Form No. 7 earlier before the Land Tribunal, which has become final and conclusive. That being so, the application filed by the appellant in Form No. 7A was clearly not maintainable in law. Having regard to all this, the learned single Judge has found that the order made by the two authorities below do not warrant interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution and has accordingly rejected the writ petition. We find no error in the order made by the learned single Judge as to warrant interference in the appeal. Hence, we find that there is no merit in this writ appeal. 6. We find no error in the order made by the learned single Judge as to warrant interference in the appeal. Hence, we find that there is no merit in this writ appeal. 6. In the result, this appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed. 7. Appeal dismissed.