ORDER :

Despite service, none appears for respondent nos. 2 to 9. Leave granted.

2. Both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have concluded against the appellant mainly on the ground that the possession, as required under Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, as it then existed, was not handed over in favour of the landlord.

3. Before proceeding further it is relevant to note the provisions of Sections 14(1) and 14(5) of Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (now called as Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961) as they existed in the year 1961-1970, the relevant years for the purpose of this case:-

“14. Resumption of land from tenants –

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 22 and 43, but subject to the provisions of this Section and of Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 41, a landlord may, if he bona fide requires land, other than land held by a permanent tenant,-

(i) For cultivating personally, or

(ii) For any non-agricultural purpose,

file with the Tribunal a statement indicating the land or lands owned by him and which he intends to resume and such other particulars as may be prescribed. On such statement being filed, the Tribunal sha