JUDGMENT 1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5943/2006 dated 24-8-2009 wherein he has confirmed the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1040/2003 dated 28-2-2006 is called in question in this appeal. 2. The appellant contends that she is in possession of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.33/1 and 3 acres of land in Sy.No.32 of Jambur Village in Somwarpet Taluk under the second respondent. 3. The undisputed fact is that the lands in question are Inam lands covered under the provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. For the reasons best known to the appellant, appellant did not make any application for regrant under the provisions of Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 by filing Form No.1 within the time extended by the State of Karnataka. 4. The appellant invoking Sec.77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act filed Form 7A before the competent authority for grant of occupancy rights which application came to be allowed. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order in allowing the application of the appellant filed in Form No.7A of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, the second respondent filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal contending that Sec.77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act could not have been invoked by the appellant in respect of the lands covered under Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. The Tribunal considering the arguments of both the parties came to the conclusion that Sec.77A cannot be made applicable to the lands covered under Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 and the party who claims right in respect of inam lands can press into service only the provisions of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed by reversing the order allowing Form No.7. 5. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition. Two points were urged before the learned Single Judge:- (1) The right of second respondent in maintaining an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal contending that the second respondent has no right, title or interest and cannot be considered as an aggrieved person in order to file an appeal because the land being an inam land had vested in the Government. (2) It was also contended that in view of Sec.126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Form-7A filed by the appellant was maintainable. (2) It was also contended that in view of Sec.126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Form-7A filed by the appellant was maintainable. The learned Single Judge has rejected both the contentions and dismissed the petition. Therefore, the present appeal is filed. 6. Mr. Ponnanna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterates the grounds urged before the learned single Judge and relying on Sec.126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms act contends that in view of Sec.126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, the appellant can file an application in Form No.7A to claim rights in respect of inams land. He further contends that the second respondent being an Inamdar who has no right, title or interest over the property which property had already vested in the State was not entitled to file an appeal. 7. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by Mr. Ponnanna it would be appropriate for us to refer to Sec. 126. 126. Application of Act to Inams. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act in so far as they confer any rights and impose obligations on tenants and landlords shall be applicable to tenants holding lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands [(including tenants referred to in section 8 of the Village Officers’ Abolition Act, 1961 but subject to the provisions of the said Act)] and to landlords and inamdars holding lands in such villages or lands. 8. On perusal of Sec.126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, we are of the view that the Government has permitted the Land Tribunal consider the applications filed in Form No.7 of certain Inams Abolition Act for regrant. However, Section 126 of K.L.R. Act can not be misdirected as if all the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act is made applicable to Inam lands. Sec.77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act enables a person who has not filed an application in Form No.7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to make an application separately. However, Section 126 of K.L.R. Act can not be misdirected as if all the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act is made applicable to Inam lands. Sec.77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act enables a person who has not filed an application in Form No.7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to make an application separately. We would have appreciated the arguments of Mr.Ponnanna provided in respect of inam lands also Form No.7 under K.L.R. Act and can be filed when a person claiming to be a tenant under Certain Inams Abolition Act has to make an application in Form No.1 of Certain Inams Abolition but, not in Form No.7 of the Land Reforms Act, Section 126 of the Act cannot be misinterpreted contending that Form No.7A can also be filed for Inam land. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Sec.7A of the Land Reforms Act cannot be pressed into service to claim a right in respect of inams land which is covered under the provisions of the Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. Accordingly, we answer the said point against the appellant. 9. So far as maintainability of the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by the second respondent is concerned; admittedly the appellant is claiming right over the land in question under the second respondent. The second respondent was an Inamdar. On account of Certain Inams Abolition Act, Inam lands are vested in the Government. Merely because the land is vested in the Government the appellant cannot contend that inamdar shall allow a person who is not entitled for grant to make an application to deprive the property of the State. He has to be considered as a interested and aggrieved person because he was the Inamdar. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Inamdar as an aggrieved person. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.