M NARAYANASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner is the owner of survey nos. 48 to 51, 62, 63 and67 to 71 of nimbekayipura village. Some of these lands areleased and some are mortgaged by the petitioner to the secondrespondent for running a stud-farm known as 'clive stud-farm'.on the advent of the Karnataka land reforms act (hereinafterreferred to as 'the act') in the present form with effect from1-3-1974, the second respondent filed form no. 7 before theland tribunal, however, making it clear in the said form thatthe said lands are being used as stud-farm for breeding, rearingand maintenance of horses and allied purposes referred to inrule 38-a of the Karnataka land reforms Rules (hereinafterreferred to as'the rules'.the petitioner applied to the government to approve thestud-farm under the provisions of the act and the rules. Thegovernment called for a report from the special deputycommissioner. He stated that the stud-farm is in existence since1967 duly registered with royal western India turf club,bombay. He noted that the stud-farm is developed for thepurpose for which it stands and 67 adult horses, 22 immaturehorses and 11 foals are born until 1984. He observed that 84acres of land is less than ceiling limit the stud-farm can hold andit does not have excess land. Since the stud-farm owner is notseeking exemption, the same may be rejected. Approving hisview commissioner, revenue department, has passed theimpugned order annexure-d rejecting petitioner's application.aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) the learned counsel for the petitioner contended thatsection 107 of the act itself provides for exemption of lands fromapplicability of the act and government has merely to approvethe stud-farm by finding out whether it fulfills the prescribedconditions in rule 38-a of the rules; that when once thegovernment concluded that the stud-farm fulfilled theconditions prescribed under rule 38-a, it had no option but togrant approval under section 107(1)(v) of the act; that thequestion of who owned the stud-farm being irrelevant thegovernment could not have taken into consideration suchmaterial in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

(3.) the learned counsel for the respondents contended thatthough the act or the Rules are silent as to who should apply forthe grant of approval under section 107(1)(v) of the Act, theobjects and scheme of the act would make it clear that it is onlyin the interest of maintaining a stud-farm exemption had beenprovided and thus the state government was justified in takinginto consideration the fact that the petitioner was not interestedin maintaining the stud-farm it was also submitted that therewas ample material on record to show that the petitioner,intended to utilise the land for purposes other than stud-farm bysale for other purposes or otherwise.