The petitioner is the owner ofthe land bearing Sy. No. 3/1 measuring 7 guntas 8 annas of Honnavar, Uttara Kannada District. The 3rd respondent had made an application, seeking grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 3 guntas of land from out of the aforesaid 7 guntas 8 annas of land. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 17-9-1985 rejected the application on the ground that the land in question is not an agricultural land. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P. No. 20771 of 1993. This Court by order dated 22-11-1996 rejected the said writ petition holding that the land in question is situated within the City Municipal Limits of Honnavar and that it is not a 'land' as defined under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The 3rd respondent filed an appeal challenging the said order before this Court in W.A. No. 92 of 1997, which was also dismissed on 21-9-1998. The Division Bench has held thus:

"10. The Legislature made a distinction between an agricultural land and a non-agricultural land. The said Legislature enacted the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, whereas, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is enacted by the Parliament. Thus, there is a distinction between an agricultural land and an urban land. By reading the provisions of the above stated Karnataka Land Reforms Act, it is manifest that the occupancy certificate can be granted only for the agricultural lands or the lands which can be used for agriculture, but not for the lands which are urban or urban nature or can be used for house sites for construction of houses or lands which are appurtenant to houses. The land in urban area and municipal area is deemed to be a vacant land as per Section 2(g) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Therefore, the disputed land is not an agricultural land as it is surrounded by a house. It is in the nature of urban land as it is situated within the municipal limits of Honnavar Municipality. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the request for grant of occupancy certificate.

11. There is no dispute that the occupancy certificate can be granted where an agricultural land is situated within the Municipal limits or urban area if it still continues to be an agricultural land. But such an instance is absent in the present case. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the grant of occupancy certificate".

2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar, under Section 130 of the KLR Act for summary eviction of the 3rd respondent from the land in question. The said application was transferred to the Tahsildar, Honnavar, who has passed an order dated 22-2-1999 at Annexure-E, rejecting the application on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. An appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District, as per Annexure-F, dated 1-7-1999. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the order of the Tahsildar at Annexure-E and the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-F in this writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. The Land Tribunal in its impugned order has clearly held that the land in question is not an agricultural land and therefore, the occupancy rights in respect of the said land cannot be granted in favour of-the 3rd respondent. The writ petition challenging the said order was dismissed which was confirmed in writ appeal. In the writ appeal this Court has held that the land in question is not an agricultural land as it is surrounded by a house and it is in the nature of urban land situated within the Municipal Limits of Honnavar Municipality.

5. Clause (18) of Section 2(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act defines "land" as follows.-

"2. (A)(18) 'Land' means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or