ORDER Ajit J. Gunjal, J.— Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. Though facts may be slightly different nevertheless, the Appellate Tribunal has disposed of the appeals on the ground of the land not vesting under Section 44 of the Land Reforms Act. 3. Few facts are necessary to appreciate the controversy in question. The facts relatable to W.P. No. 28203/2004 are as follows: The petitioners claim that they are the brothers and sons of one Parameshwar Poojary, who died on 02.07.1996. The said Parameshwar Poojary was the tenant of the lands in question since long and the Record of Rights would reflect the same. It is no doubt, true that the said Parameshwar Poojary did not make an application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights. But nevertheless, after the introduction of Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the petitioners made an application in Form 7A for grant of occupancy rights. 4. On notice, the respondent - landlord entered appearance and resisted the application on the ground that as on 01.03.1974 the petitioners were not the tenants of the land in question. Hence, the question of granting occupancy rights does not arise. These facts were accepted by the competent authority inasmuch as no documents were forthcoming to show that the land has vested in the Government under Section 44 of the Act. The said rejection was the subject matter of an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which has confirmed the order of the competent authority. As against the said finding, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. In W.P. No. 27528/2005, the petitioner claims to be a tenant of Sy. No. 7/2 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas and 55/1 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas. He also made an application for grant of land in Form No. 7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The competent authority accepted the application on the ground that enough material is there to show that the petitioner was cultivating the land in question. The said order was questioned by the landlord before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal and has set-aside the order inasmuch as no material was forthcoming to show the vesting of land with the Government under Section 44 of the Act. The said order is questioned in this writ petition. 6. The said order was questioned by the landlord before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal and has set-aside the order inasmuch as no material was forthcoming to show the vesting of land with the Government under Section 44 of the Act. The said order is questioned in this writ petition. 6. When both the petitions listed before the learned Single Judge for hearing, the learned Single Judge doubted the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.C. Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR (2005) KAR 3637 referred the matter to a larger Bench on the question of vesting inasmuch as whether there should be an order passed by the competent authority regarding vesting. The full bench pursuant to its order dated 22.01.2011 has pronounced on the said question in paras 18 and 19 of its order. 7. I have heard Smt. Suguna R. Reddy as well as Mr. A.G. Shivanna, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior counsel and Mr. M.R. Rajgopal, Learned Counsel appearing for the landlords. 8. Insofar as the question of law, which was referred to the full Bench is concerned, the same is dealt by it in paras 18 and 19 of the Judgment. Indeed while considering the scope of Section 77A of the Act, the fall Bench has observed that an enquiry as contemplated under Section 48-A of the Act is excluded. The entire enquiry conducted under Section 77A is in respect: of the land, which is vested in the Government as on 01.03.1974. The full bench has observed that this fact must be undisputed. If the question is disputed, then Section 77A is not applicable. Section 77A is attracted only in respect of undisputed tenanted lands. 9. In para 19 of the judgment, the full bench has observed as to how the vesting is required to foe dealt. Whether there must be an order by a competent authority regarding vesting or the documents would disclose the fact that the land stood vested with the Government under Section 44 of the Act as on 01.03.1974. Indeed this fact is required to be reconsidered at the hands of the competent authority with reference to the ruling of the full bench. 10. Indeed this fact is required to be reconsidered at the hands of the competent authority with reference to the ruling of the full bench. 10. It is no doubt true that a contention is sought to be urged before me by the learned Senior counsel as well as the counsel for the landlords indicating that the documents produced would clearly establish that the petitioners were not the tenants as on 01.03.1974. But however, this fact is seriously disputed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-tenants. I am of the view that this factual aspect is required to be considered by the competent authority with reference to the Full Bench ruling. The competent authority is also required to refer to the documents and come to a conclusion whether indeed the land was a tenanted land and it would vest with the Government. Undoubtedly, the vesting would take place only if the land is tenanted and not otherwise. 11. Having said so, 1 am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the competent authority. Hence, the following order: (a) Both the petitions are allowed. (b) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the competent authority is set-aside and the matter stands remitted to the competent authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law with reference to the ruling of the full bench moreso at paras 18 and 19 of the judgment. (c) The competent authority shall conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions are left open. 12. Mr. R. Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.