S S HILLI Vs. P M HALLAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High court dated 24/11/1972.

(2.) Necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant landlord made an application under S. 14 of Mysore Lands Reforms Act, 1961 for resumption of his lands R. S. 48/1 measuring 7 acres 19 guntas and R. S. No. 64/2-A measuring 2 acres 11 guntas on the ground that he bona fide required the same for his personal cultivation. The trial court allowed resumption of the lands to the extent of half of the holding of the land included in R. S. 48/1 but it rejected the appellant's prayer for resumption with regard to the other holding. The appellant as well as the tenant both preferred appeals before District Judge, Bijapur. The appellant contended that he should have been permitted to resume land to the extent of half from both the holdings while the tenant submitted that the trial court committed error in permitting resumption of half of the land from R. S. No. 48/1. The District Judge accepted the tenant's contention and allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord's appeal. The appellant thereupon preferred a revision petition before the High court. A learned Single Judge allowed the revision petition partly and set aside the order of the appellate court made by the District Judge and directed that a certificate shall be issued to the landlord to resume R. S. No. 64/2-A only. The appellant-landlord has preferred this appeal after obtaining special leave.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant made two submissions before us. Firstly, he urged that the High court committed error in refusing resumption on misconception of law by applying S. 31-B (i) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Secondly, he urged that the High court committed error in categorising the land as unirrigated and dry land. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. We perused the material contained in the records as well as the relevant provisions of law but we do not find any good reason to take a different view than that taken by the High court.