TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (6) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter be referred to according to their respective positions in the writ petition. 3. Respondent 3 had made two applications under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), seeking occupancy right in respect of 3 acres 1 gunta of land comprised in Survey No. 41/2 of Sasvegatta village, Bangalore North Taluk, belonging to the petitioner. Those applications were granted by the Tribunal by its order dated 18-6-1975. That order was impugned in the writ petition from which the present appeal has arisen. There, the petitioner's grievance was that the Tribunal had made the order impugned the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e writ petition, was that he did not have sufficient opportunity to put forth his case before the Tribunal, it was absolutely necessary to afford now to his legal representatives such opportunity and not have been decided by Judge on reappreciation which, even according to the not worthy of consideration. 7. Shri K. Channabasappa, learned counsel for present respondents 3 (a) to 3 (d) (legal representatives of the deceased petitioner), sought to sustain the order of the learned single Judge on a ground different from the one on which he (the learned single Judge) based his order. Shri Channabasappa argued that the applications under Section 48-A of the Act had to be dismissed because the land in question was not an agricultural land and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or husband the land for the purpose of raising or improving agricultural produce whether by manual labour or by means of cattle or machinery, or to carry on any agricultural operation thereon; and the expression 'uncultivated' shall be construed correspondingly; Explanation:- A person who takes up a contract to cut grass, or to gather the fruits or other produce of any land, shall not on that account only be deemed to cultivate such land." 10. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Income-tax Commr. v. Benoy Kumar , at one time 'agriculture' was understood in its primary sense of cultivation of field and that too, for the production of food crops for human beings and beasts, that limited interpretation could not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s High Court in Bharathi Swarbigal v. Duraiswamy (AIR 1931 Mad 659) in which it was held that a person occupying a land used for growing casuarina trees, could not be regarded as a tenant under the Madras Estates Land Act. In our opinion, the decision in that case turned on the provisions of that Act and no assistance can be derived from that decision for deciding a case arising under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 13. Thus, raising of casuarina trees which are not of spontaneous growth, comes within the ambit of cultivation. 14. Hence, we reject the contention of Shri Channabasappa that no occupancy right can be granted to the tenant of a land who raises casuarina trees thereon. 15. In the result, we allow this appeal partly, uph....