Somnath Iyer, J. - (1.)While the Assistant Commissioner made a re-grant to the petitioner in these seven Writ Petitions, the Deputy Commissioner made the re-grant to the contesting respondents But in the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Divisional Commissioner the order of the Deputy Commissioner was modified and there was a direction that the name of the contesting respondents should be continued in the Record of Rights as occupants of ordinary raiyatwari lands. There was also a direction that the name of the petitioner in the "other rights" column in that record should he deleted. The occupancy price paid by both the parties was directed to be refunded.
(2.)From this decision of the Divisional Commissioner, there were revision petitions to the Tribunal by the petitioner The Revenue Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the contesting respondents were holders of the walan and that they were therefore entitled to a re-graut
(3.)It is obvious that since the contesting respondents did not call in question the order of the Divisional Commissioner that their names should be entered in the Record of Rights Register as occupants of ordinary raiyatwari lands, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal could not have discussed the question whether they were the holders of the watan so as to become entitled to the re-grant on payment of an occupancy price. That part of the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal which was not within its competence must therefore be set aside.