The central legal point established in the judgment is that once a land is converted for non-agricultural purpose, it ceases to fall under the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the order dt. 6-7-1981 of the learned single Judge in wp No. 11326/79.-Grant of permission to convert to non-

( 2 ) IN the said writ petition the first respondent herein had challenged the order dt. May 17, 1979 of the Land Tribunal doddaballapur by which the occupancy right was granted in respect of a land in favour of the appellant. Admittedly the first respondent is the owner of the land.

( 3 ) SEEKING a writ of certiorari to quash that order of the Tribunal, the contention of the first respondent before the learned single Judge was that the land in question, not being a "land" as defined in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act'), did not vest in the State Government under s. 44 of the Act. The learned single Judge, after hearing the counsel and examining the material on record, came to the conclusion that the land was a non agricultural one as on March 1, 1974, the date on which, under S. 44, all tenanted lands vested statutorily in the State Government. Placing reliance on a previous decision of this Court in Narasimiha Shetty v. State of karnataka (1 ). the learned Judge was of the view that that no occupancy rights could have been claimed by the appellant under S. 45 read with S. 48a of the Act, and the Tribunal also had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim.

( 4 ) WHILE challenging these findings it was argued before us that the learned single judge had erred in placing reliance on an order of the concerned authority permitting conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose without taking into consideration the fact that the land was still under cultivation as found by the Tribunal. It was further submitted that the permission accorded to use the land for a non-agricultural purpose did not take away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to investigate into the nature of the land concerned.

( 5 ) THE extent of the land is 3 acres 36 guntas. It stands in the katha of the first respondent. It is not disputed and indeed cannot be disputed that the land was converted to non-agricultural purpose as per the order of the Spl. Dy. Commissioner dt. Decr. 8, 1959. In this connection the following observations made by the Tribunal may be noted :"the respondent submitted an extract of the IL (Index of land records), which indicates that an extent of 3 14 acres of land was converted as per the order of the Spl, Dy. Commissioner, Rural Dist. , bangalore, as per memo No. ALN 712/ c-9613/61-62 dt. 29-1 1963 and also bears a shara to the effect that the remaining extent of 12 gurtas was also converted to non-agricultural purposes as per the SDC memo No. D-Dis. A3. ADN-61/58 59 dt. 8-12-1959. He also produced an endorsement in No. RCP- rli-35/74 75 dt. 6th Septr. , 1974 issued by the TMC, Doddaballapur. As the endoraement is stated that subsequent to the order of conversion assessment has been levied by the TMC, Doddaballapur. He also produced an extract of municipal katha No. 3303/665. Accordingly he stated that the Municipal tax is again confirmed. He stated that he has been paying the Municipal tax levied on this land He also produced a copy of the licence No. MBL 38/74-75 issued by the TMC, Doddaballapura, to install a saw mill. He admitted that even now 25 cocoanut trees are standing in this land".

( 6 ) APART from the documents referred to above, the landlord also had produced a rent bond dt. July 11, 1973 said to have been executed by this appellant and another venkatashamappa taking on lease a house said to be situate in a portion of this land on an agreed rent of Rs. 10 per month

( 7 ) IN spite of this evidence, the Tribunal has held that the laud is an agricultural land that the claimant before it was a lessee as on March 1, 1974 ; that there were a few cocoanut trees on the land ; that the pahanies for the year 1967-68 indicated that the claimant's father Gurappa was cultivating the land ; and, therefore, it should be presumed that the claimant before it and the membe