Judgment

 The appellant claims occupancy right under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. His claim has been allowed by the Land Tribunal, but the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside by the Karnataka High Court. The decision of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal.

2. The question for consideration is whether the High Court after setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. In fact, this was the only question that was urged in the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench has rejected that request on the ground that the occupancy right claimed by the appellant was not one arising out of agrarian relations. This conclusion seems to have been based on the pleadings before the High Court. It is reflected from the following observations of the Division Bench of the High Court [AIR 1977 Kant 137 at p. 147] :

"In our opinion, the dispute between the parties is not one arising out of agrarian relations. The scope of the Act is limited to questions arising out of agrarian relations. A person whose possession of agricultural lands does not rest on agrarian relations cannot