This revision petition is filed by the landlords of Survey No. 322 situated at Nilaji Village of Belgaum Taluk, measuring 4 acres 16 guntas, challenging the order of granting occupancy rights in favour of 1st respondent herein by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum in RALR No. 81 of 1987, dated 13-12-1989.

2. The records disclose that the 1st respondent herein filed Form 7 for granting occupancy rights in his favour for the land bearing Survey No. 322, situated at Nilaji Village of Belgaum Taluk, measuring 5 acres (actually measures 4 acres 16 guntas). The petitioners herein and respondent 4, viz., Anantha Nanasaheb Pawar, being the legal representatives of deceased Changunabai, are the landlords of the said property. The Land Tribunal on considering the material on record, rejected Form 7 filed by 1st respondent herein by its order dated 4-12-1986. Against the said order, 1st respondent filed statutory appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum. Both the parties were permitted to lead evidence before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, both the parties have led their evidence. The Appellate Authority after considering the material on record, including the additional evidence, granted the occupancy rights in favour of the 1st respondent by allowing his application in Form 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners.

3. Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the present Form 7 dated 20-12-1976 filed by 1st respondent herein is the second Form 7 filed praying for grant of occupancy rights; that the first Form 7 filed by 1st respondent was on 8-11-1974 for grant of occupancy rights for five other survey numbers; and that therefore, the second Form 7 is not maintainable. Secondly, he submitted that the 1st respondent is actually set up by respondent 4, viz., Anantha Pawar and that therefore, 1st respondent is not a real tenant over the property in question. He further submits that the appreciation of the evidence by the Court below is not just and proper, inasmuch as, the presumption arising out of the revenue records is not given due weightage by the Appellate Authority. Per contra, Sri Umesh R. Malimath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1(a) to (c) argued in support of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Both the learned Advocates have taken me through the entire material on record.

4. It is not in dispute that the Form 7 praying for grant of occupancy rights filed by the 1st respondent on 20-12-1976 is his second application in Form 7. First Form 7 was filed by the 1st respondent on 8-11-1974 claiming occupancy rights over five other survey numbers. It is no doubt true that this Court in the case of Giriyappa and Others v State of Karnataka and Others and in the case of Parameshwar Timmayya Hegde and Others v Venkataraman Manjappa Hegde (deceased) by L.Rs and Others, has held that second Form 7 filed by the very tenant is not maintainable. Based on these judgments, Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the present Form 7 filed on 20-12-1976 cannot be entertained at all.

The said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the aforecited judgments are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In Giriyappa's case, the tenant had filed Form 7 for the second time against very landlord after disposal of his first• Form 7 at an earlier point of time. In that view of the matter, this Court took the view that it is not open for the tenant to file second Form 7 after disposal of his first Form 7 claiming occupancy rights afresh. In Parameshwar Timmayya Hegde's case also, the facts are different. There also the second Form 7 was filed against the very landlord against whom first Form 7 was filed. Moreover in that matter, the tenant had described himself as owner of a disputed