GANGARAM BANGALE Vs. BALGOUDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord and filed an application under Sec'tion 14(1) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 for resumption of the land R. S. No. 337/15 measuring 2 acres and 13 guntas assessed at Rs. 5/- situated at Sarnbra village, Beleaum District. The claim made by the landlord was that the land is bona fide required by him for his personal cultivation and that the income from the suit land will be the principal source for his maintenance. The Land Tribunal, Belgaum, raised two points for consideration. They are: (1) Does the applicant prove that he requires bona fide the land in dispute for his personal cultivation; and (2) If yes, what is the extent of the land to which he is entitled for resumption under the amended provisions of Section 16(10B) of M. L. R. Act. 1961? It held that the petitioner is entitled to resume half of disputed land R. S. No. 337/15 measuring 2 acres and 13 gunthas assessed at Rs. 5/--For arriving at this conclusion, the Land Tribunal recorded certain findings, they are (1) that the landlord reasonably and bona fide required the land for his personal cultivation; (2) that the income of the suit land will be the principal source for his maintenance; and (3) the extent of land to which the landlord would be entitled to claim under Section 31B (1) of the B. T. & A. L. Act of 1947 would be half of the land claimed by the landlord. On the question of bona fide and reasonable requirement, the Land Tribunal found that there was no material placed to hold that the claim of the landlord was not bona fide. On the question of the principal source of income, the view taken was that barring the temporary income that the landlord was deriving from working as an accountant, he has no other source of income.

(2.) The tenant-respondent filed an appeal before the 1st Additional District Judge. Belgaum, and the learned District Judge who heard the said appeal, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal. The learned District Judge held that the claim of the landlord was not bona fide and that it was stated that the income from the suit land may not be the main source of income. It is these two findings that led ultimately to the dismissal of the landlord's application.

(3.) It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision petition.