ORDER Ramesh, J. 1. Petitioner has sought to quash the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Chikkaballapur at Annexure-C dated 21.10.1978. 2. However, during pendency of the matter having ascertained the legal position, petitioners are not pressing for quashing of annexures A and B which are dated 25.3.1995 and 16.8.1983 respectively. 3. One Venkat Reddy the husband of the petitioner filed Form 7 in respect of property in Sy.No.120 measuring about 2.00 acres of Poshetty Village, Chikkaballapur Taluk. On the ground that the land in question is a Shanbogh Inamti land, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner’s husband by its order dated 21.10.1978. However, that order could not be challenged by the husband of the petitioner as he expired immediately during 1979. Thereafter, petitioner being the wife of the applicant, filed Form 7 under Section 77. These two applications have been rejected by the competent authority against which, appeal is filed by the petitioner which is pending consideration. 4. It is seen there is an amendment brought to Section126 of the Land Reforms Act as a matter of clarification, on 1.1.1979. As per Section126 of the Act, it is clarified that the provisions of the Land Reforms Act in so far as conferring any right and imposes obligation on the tenants and landlord shall be applicable to the tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands including the tenants referred to in Section 8 of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 but subject to the provisions of the said Act and to the landlords and inamdars holding in such villages or lands. 5. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel representing the respondents and the Government Pleader. 6. As could be seen from the impugned order at Annexure C, on the ground that there is no re-grant order in favour of the last holder of the office and also that the land in question is a Shanbogh inamthi land, the Land Tribunal straight away rejected the case of the husband of the petitioner. However, in view of the subsequent clarification available irrespective of the fact that the land is a inamthi land and once it is said to be a tenanted land the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to consider the same in accordance with law and there cannot be any exception by virtue of the special Act like the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. In that view of the matter, though the Land Tribunal originally rejected the application of the husband of the petitioner for grant of Occupancy rights, it was for want of clarification. But, in view of the clarification inserted by the amendment Act of 1979, irrespective of the fact that the land is a inam land or in the regular course is a tenanted land over which there is tenancy claimed, the Land Tribunal has got jurisdiction to deal with the same. 7. In that view of the matter and in view of the submission made that the petitioner is going to withdraw the appeal pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, petitioner is given liberty to once again file application before the land Tribunal, Chikkaballapur to reopen the file wherein an order has been passed rejecting the application of the original applicant. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-C is quashed. On such application being filed within a reasonable time, it is for the Land Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties. Petition is allowed.