ORDER The petitioners, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 19-7-1988 in Appeal No. L.R.A. No. 366 of 1986 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad District, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti in proceeding No. TNC:SR:28:76-77, dated 7-12-1978, have presented this land reforms revision petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in this revision petition is that, one Sri Late Gundappa who is none other than husband of the first petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner, claiming to be the tenant, had filed Form 7 on 12-12-1975 for registering the occupancy rights in his favour. The said Form 7 is available in original records. In Form 7 he has stated that, Sy. No. 22/2 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas, out of which, 6 guntas of phot karab and he has purchased the land measuring 1 acre 26 guntas, under agreement of sale on 20-7-1970; Sy. No. 22/1 measuring 2 acres, out of which, 6 guntas of phot kharab and he has taken the remaining land of 1 acre 34 guntas, on lease for a period of 99 years on 2-12-1971 and Sy. No. 38/1 and Sy. No. 38/2 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and 1 acre 25 guntas, respectively, were purchased by him. Further, he stated that, all these lands are situated at Nelogal Village, Hullur Post, Shirahatti Taluk and requested the Land Tribunal to register the occupancy rights in his favour. The said application filed by the deceased Gundappa, now represented by the petitioners herein, had come up for consideration before the Tribunal, Shirahatti on 7-12-1978. The Land Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and in view of the admission made by the 1st petitioner that, the said lands were not cultivated by her at no point of time as a tenant, but she is cultivating the said lands on the basis of agreement for sale, rejected the Form 7 filed by one Sri Gundappa on 7-12-1978. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 7-12-1978 passed by the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti, petitioners have filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 20472 of 1983. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 7-12-1978 passed by the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti, petitioners have filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 20472 of 1983. When the said writ petition was pending before this Court, in view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the Appellate Authority has been constituted and in view of the constitution of the Appellate Authority, this Court by its order dated 25-11-1986 has transferred the said writ petition to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad and renumbered as L.R.A. No. 366 of 1986. The Appellate Authority, after conducting enquiry in strict compliance of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Appellate Authority) Rules, 1986 and after careful perusal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti, declaration given by deceased Sri Gundappa claiming to be tenant in Form 7 and other entries found in relevant RTC extracts, has given a specific finding that, the lands in question were inam lands and petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that, they are cultivating the said lands as tenants and the said lands have been re-granted by the Competent Authority and until and unless they are re-granted by Competent Authority, occupancy rights cannot be granted as they are inam lands and dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti and Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwad, as referred above, the petitioners felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition. 3. The principal ground urged by the petitioners in this revision petition is that, orders passed by both the authorities are contrary to the law and facts of the case besides being arbitrary; the authorities have gravely erred in rejecting Form 7 filed by deceased Gundappa; the authorities have failed to consider the registered lease deed in favour of the petitioners and deceased Sri Gundappa was illiterate and innocent and he did not know about the worldly affairs, as he was a permanent tenant over the properties he must have thought that he has become the owner of the petition properties. Further, it is specifically contended that, the very fact that, the deceased Sri Gundappa had filed Fom17 itself goes to shows that, deceased Sri Gundappa was a tenant and the reasoning given by the Appellate Authority is that, lands are inam lands and hence no occupancy rights could be granted unless the lands are regranted. The said reasoning is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Therefore, they contended that, both the orders are liable to be quashed consequently the occupancy rights should be granted to the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 7, inter alia, contended and substantiated the orders passed by both the authorities. To substantiate his submission, he has taken me through the orders passed by both the authorities and submitted that, after appreciating the oral and documentary available on file both the authorities have recorded the concurrent finding of fact stating that, petitioners have failed to establish that, they are cultivating the said lands as tenants. Further, he submitted that, as a matter of fact, 1st petitioner has appeared before the Land Tribunal and admitted in her evidence that, they are not cultivating the said lands as tenants and they are cultivating the said lands on the basis of lease agreement. The admission made by the 1st petitioner and the declaration given by one Sri Gundappa who has filed Form 7 itself suffice for the authorities to hold that petitioners have never cultivated the said lands as tenants and they have also failed to produced any documents to show that the lands in question are regranted to them by the Competent Authority. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are in accordance with law and there is no justification to interfere with the well-considered orders passed by the authorities and hence the revision petition filed by the petitioners may be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for both the parties. After careful perusal of the grounds urged by the petitioners in the revision petition and after microscopic evaluation of the entire original records available before this Court, including the orders passed by both the authorities, the only question that arises for consideration in the instant revision petition is: "Whether the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are in accordance with law?" 6. After hearing the learned Counsels appearing for both the parties and after careful evaluation of the original records available on file, including the orders passed by both the authorities, it is manifest on the face of the orders that, both the authorities have not committed any error, much less irregularity in rejecting the claim made by the petitioners. It is significant to note here itself that, on a perusal of original records available on file, it is evident that one Sri Gundappa now represented by his legal representatives had filed Form 7 on 12-12-1975. In the said Form 7, he has given a statement stating that, he is cultivating the land in Sy. No. 22/2 on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 20-7-1970, he is cultivating the land in Sy. No. 22/1 on the basis of lease taken for a period of99 years from 2-12-1971 and Sy. Nos. 38/1 and 38/2 were purchased by him. The said Form 7 has been registered as TNC:SR:28176-77. It is pertinent to note that, in pursuance of the Form 7 filed by the deceased Sri Gundappa, the Special Tahsildar, Shirahatti, being the Secretary of the Land Tribunal has prepared a check memo in the said case and the same is available in original records in Pages 1 to 7 furnishing all details about four lands. In the said check memo, he has stated that, Sy. No. 22/2 and Sy. No. 22/1 are Talwari Inam lands and Sy. No. 38/1 and Sy. No. 38/2 are Patilki Inam lands. In item No.5, he has furnished details of survey numbers and entries found in the RTC extracts. In respect of Sy. No. 22/1 he has stated that, for the agricultural years 1961-62 to 1962-63 Pahani has not been written. In the RTC from 1963-64 to 1971-72, it is shown as 'Self-cultivation' and from 1972-73 to 1974-75 the name of one Sri Basavaraj Guddappa is shown. In respect of Sy. No. 22/2 from the year 1961-62 name of one Sri Sannabasappa Takkappa Talavara is shown. For 1962-63 pahani has not been written. From 1963-64 to 1974-75 in columns (9) and (12), it shown as 'self-cultivation'. In respect of Sy. In respect of Sy. No. 22/2 from the year 1961-62 name of one Sri Sannabasappa Takkappa Talavara is shown. For 1962-63 pahani has not been written. From 1963-64 to 1974-75 in columns (9) and (12), it shown as 'self-cultivation'. In respect of Sy. No. 38/1 for the agricultural years 1961-62 and 1962-63, it shown as 'self-cultivation'; for 1963-64 to 1965-66 the name of Sri Basavanagouda E. Patil is shown; for 1966-67 the name of Renakappa Thakappalammani is shown; for 1967-68 to 1971-72 name of Basavanagouda Eranagouda Patil is shown; for 1972-73 to 1974-75 name of Dundappa Ningappa Puri is shown. In respect of Sy. No. 38/2 for the agricultural years 1961-62 to 1962-63 it is shown as 'self-cultivation'; for 1963-64 to 1965-66 name of one Sri Basavanagouda Eranagouda Patil is shown; for 1966-67 name of Renakappa Thukkappa Lammani and Mannangouda Patil Koru is shown; for 1967-68 to 1971-72 name of Sri Basavanagouda Eranagouda Patil is shown; for 1972-73 to 1973-74 name of Gundappa Ningappa Kuri who is none other than husband of the first petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner. As per check memo prepared by the Special Tahsildar-cum-Secretary of the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti for the relevant period i.e., as on 1-2-1963 or 1-7 -1970 or 1-3-1974 name of the deceased petitioner was not found as having cultivating the said lands as tenant. As a matter of fact, when he has filed Form 7 under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for registering the occupancy rights, he himself has declared that, he is cultivating the said lands on the basis of agreement of sale and lease. When these admitted facts as it reveals from the documentary evidence available on record in ink page No.7, i.e., Form 7 filed by the deceased Sri Gundappa on 12-12-1975, Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry as per Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 read with Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and in view of the admission made by the first petitioner that she is not cultivating the said lands as a tenant and she is cultivating the said lands on the basis of the agreement of sale and lease from 1970 onwards, has given a specific finding that, lands in question are not a tenanted lands and they are not vested in the Government as on 1-3-1974. Therefore, the lands in question are not vested in the Government as per Section 44(1) of the Land Reforms Act. The Appellate Authority after thorough verification of the original records available on file and after going through the order passed by the Land Tribunal and the declaration given by the deceased-Sri Gundappa in Form 7, has given a specific finding stating that, there is no dispute that the lands in question are inam lands and no documentary evidence are produced by the petitioners before it, to show that they are regranted by the Competent Authority and since they are the inam lands, unless and until they are regranted by the Competent Authority, the occupancy rights cannot be granted and rightly dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Shirahatti. Both the authorities after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available file, have recorded the concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners stating that, the lands in question are not tenanted lands and they are not vested in the Government as on 1-3-1974. The petitioners have not produced documentary evidence to prove their case. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities, the interference by this Court by exercising revisional powers is not justifiable, in view of the well-settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. Therefore, I do not find any good grounds to interfere with the orders passed by both the authorities. Nor the petitioners have made out any good grounds to entertain this revision petition. 7. Further, learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 7 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shidramappa Bheemappa Asangi and Others u State of Karnataka and Others1 and submitted that, if the lands are inam lands, until and unless they are regranted by the Competent Authority, occupancy rights cannot be granted. Therefore, he submitted that, if the ratio of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court is taken into consideration, the petitioners have not made out any good grounds to interfere with the well-considered order passed by both the authorities. It is not in dispute that, in the aforesaid decision, Division Bench of this Court has considered the matter in detail and held thus: "20. It is not in dispute that, in the aforesaid decision, Division Bench of this Court has considered the matter in detail and held thus: "20. From the above discussion, it is clear that after resumption of land on 1-2-1963 which was merely held as emoluments by the erstwhile watandar he ceased to have any right or interest in the property and therefore, he had no authority to transfer the lands and therefore, the lease agreement dated 9-2-1970 was ab initio void. As such, taking of possession of the lands in question by the petitioner pursuant to the said lease was clearly unauthorised". If the ratio of the above said decision is taken into consideration, on this ground also, petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief Therefore, on this ground also, the instant revision petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.